FINALLY HOME: THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS AS A MICROCOSM OF AMERICAN POST WORLD WAR II RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
By JENNIFER LANE SCOTT GARRETT
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2005
Copyright 2005
by
Jennifer L. Garrett
To Tim
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members for their great insight and guidance
through this process. Professor Susan Tate, my committee chairperson, has been an
extraordinary mentor to me through this process. Working as her assistant has been the
most meaningful and enlightening experience of my educational career, and I will call on
her wisdom for years to come. Professor Tate introduced me to some of the most
important people in preservation today, including Roy Graham, whose recommendations
to me as a committee member were invaluable.
My research would not have been possible without the assistance of Dr. Julian
Pleasants and the office of the Samuel Proctor Oral History Program at the University of
Florida. Roberta Peacock and Ben Houston were especially helpful in guiding me
through the oral history process and keeping my research organized. I would also like to
thank the participants of the Flavet Oral History Program and their willingness to share
their university experiences.
As part of my research, I had the pleasure of working with Harold Barrand of
University Physical Plant Division and Linda Dixon in the Facilities Planning Division of
University of Florida. Their assistance was crucial in obtaining accurate campus maps and building plans and specifications. In addition, the University of Florida Archives staff was helpful in providing pictures and documents relating to campus history.
I would also like to thank the organizations that have provided funding for preservation research on the University of Florida campus including the State of Florida,
iv the Getty Foundation, and Florida Educational Facilities Planners. The financial support of these organizations ensures that the University of Florida will continue to protect its rich architectural past.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Timothy Garrett, for his encouragement and support, my family for their high expectations, and my friends for making it fun. I thank God for blessing me with all these individuals that have brought me to this point.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii
ABSTRACT...... x
CHAPTER
1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH...... 1
2 INTRODUCTION ...... 2
3 LITERATURE REVIEW...... 5
UF and Modernism...... 6 Collegetown...... 7
4 RESEARCH METHODS...... 13
5 HOUSING IN POST WAR AMERICA...... 18
Architectural Context...... 18 The National Building Crisis...... 20 Acute Shortage of Residential Housing ...... 20 The GI Bill and Housing ...... 22 Modernism in Residential Design ...... 22 Modern Ideals and References to the Past...... 23 Suburbia...... 25 The Residents ...... 26 Levittown...... 26 Prefabricated Housing Design ...... 27 Designing for the Environmental Setting ...... 29 National Trends In Residence Hall Design ...... 30 Summary...... 33
vi 6 THE POST-WAR UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS: UNPRECEDENTED DEMAND FOR HOUSING FAMILIES AND WOMEN ...... 34
The Campus Context ...... 34 Enrollment ...... 35 UF Housing Shortage 1946 ...... 36 Student Demographics...... 37 Campus Plan 1946-1950...... 38 Flavets...... 42 Veterans’ Issues...... 45 Flavet as a City ...... 47 Social Differences in Flavet ...... 51 Design Differences in Flavet...... 53 Comparison of Collegetown and Flavets...... 54 Flavet and Suburbia...... 56 The Colonial Revival Influence...... 58 The President’s House ...... 60 The Modern Residence Halls...... 64 Location on Campus: Reflection of Site and Climate...... 65 Interpretation of Traditional Features...... 69 Roof Design and Compatibility...... 71 Windows...... 72 Fulton’s State of the Art Designs ...... 75 Summary...... 76
7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 77
APPENDIX
A MASTER SITE FILE FORM FOR MALLORY/YULEE/REID HALLS...... 82
B MASTER SITE FILE FORM FOR MEN’S RESIDENCE HALLS...... 87
C FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS- FEMALE...... 91
D FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS-MALE...... 96
LIST OF REFERENCES...... 101
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 105
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
5.1 Baker House at Massachusetts Institute of Technology ...... 32
6.1 University of Florida Campus Map, Fall 1945 ...... 38
6.2 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1947...... 39
6.3 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1950...... 41
6.4 Family Living in Flavet I ...... 42
6.5 Flavet I, south of the stadium...... 43
6.6 Single Story Unit Construction ...... 43
6.7 Two Story Unit Construction ...... 44
6.8 Flavet III Fire Department ...... 47
6.9 Flavet III Community Garden ...... 48
6.10 The Three Press ...... 49
6.11 Flavet III Playground ...... 49
6.12 Campus Map in 1947, Flavet Villages highlighted ...... 53
6.13 Flavet Interior with Picture Window on Right ...... 56
6.14 Flavet Kitchen ...... 56
6.15 Flavet I Unit ...... 58
6.16 Flavet II Unit ...... 59
6.17 Typical Flavet III Housing Unit ...... 59
6.18 President’s House...... 60
6.19 President’s Home- Entry...... 61
viii 6.20 Campus Map Summer 1950 Highlighting Fulton Residence Hall ...... 65
6.21 Tolbert/Riker/Weaver/North...... 65
6.22 Mallory/Yulee/Reid ...... 66
6.23 North Hall Concrete Overhangs...... 67
6.24 Yulee Hall Covered Walkway ...... 68
6.25 Tolbert Concrete Spiral Stair ...... 68
6.26 Mallory/Yulee/Reid Railing...... 68
6.27 Fulton Residence Hall Entryways...... 69
6.28 Entry Details...... 70
6.29 Mallory Hall Hip Roof...... 71
6.30 Casement Windows of Residence Halls ...... 72
6.31 Mallory Hall...... 72
6.32 Stairwell Between Riker Hall and North Hall ...... 73
6.33 Stairwell Between Mallory/Yulee/Reid...... 74
ix
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Interior Design
FINALLY HOME: THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS AS A MICROCOSM OF AMERICAN POST WORLD WAR II RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
By
Jennifer Lane Scott Garrett
May 2005
Chair: Susan Tate Major Department: Interior Design
In his book Campus: An American Planning Tradition, Paul Venable Turner
supports the Jeffersonian ideal of the American campus. Colleges and universities are,
“communities in themselves-in effect, as cities in microcosm”. Turner goes on to say that
American universities and colleges in particular have developed in distinctively
American ways. If a microcosm is, “a small place, society or situation which has the same characteristics as something much larger”, and American universities have developed in American ways, as Turner states, then perhaps it is possible that an
American university could be a microcosm of American architecture and social conditions at a particular time in history.
This study will analyze significant developments in campus housing at the
University of Florida during the architecture in the post World War II period, from 1945 to 1956 within the national and global context of the period. The University of Florida’s status as a land grant institution along with its large inventory of buildings from this era
x make the university an excellent research subject for this investigation. In addition, like the country as a whole, the University of Florida went through many social changes during this time period and these changes were reflected in the architecture on campus.
For the first time, the average university student was something other than a young,
unmarried and male. This thesis seeks to demonstrate the relation of the physical and
social environment of the University of Florida post-war campus as a microcosm of that
era.
xi CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
Modernist buildings, suburbs, roadside structures, and old missile silos do not easily fit the popular concept of “old”, let alone “historic”. They also defy the general understanding of “aesthetically appealing”, which consciously and unconsciously drive many people’s decisions about the worth of elements of the built environment. [1]
-Rebecca A. Shiffer. “The Recent Past”, CRM [bulletin] 1995
Shiffer’s statement was a call to action for preservationists during the last few years of the twentieth century. Yet, ten years later, preservationists still find themselves defending the ideals of modernism and the structures that represent that ideal to those who misunderstand it. This study will analyze significant features of post-World War II housing from 1945 to 1956 at the University of Florida within the national and global context of the period. This analysis will also investigate the significance of the temporary structures that were essential to students and families who came to the university after the end of World War II. Although these structures were temporary, they formed a new kind of student housing community on the university campus. This study will document that community and the significant role it played in the post-war campus.
The character defining features of both the era and the structures on campus will be identified in an effort to demonstrate their local and national significance and contribute to the commitment of the University to preserve the physical evidence of each era of its growth.
1 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION
At the close of the Second World War, the United States was entering a time of
unprecedented growth in both population and demand for the consumer goods rationed or
restricted during the war. The architecture reflected that consumer culture. After a
decade of very little civilian construction, the American demand for new buildings was
higher than ever [2]. Americans needed more buildings in which to live, to learn, to work
and to sell their consumer goods. These buildings needed to be produced quickly and
efficiently in order to meet the consumer needs of the rapidly growing peacetime
economy.
The architecture of this era reflected the ideals of America at the time -
internationalism, practicality, and efficiency. The post-World War II political setting
sparked an increase in the international exchange of architectural ideas, which led to a worldwide increase in the acceptance of modern architecture [3]. During the 1930s,
Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe were just two of the many European modernists who escaped Europe to reside permanently in the United States [2]. By the
1940s, these architects were influencing the gradual acceptance of modernism in the
United States [2].
World War II had an enormous impact on American higher education as well. The
GI Bill, also known as the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, provided tuition and a small stipend for those who wished to pursue higher education upon their return from service.
This bill sparked an extreme increase in the enrollment of colleges and universities from
2 3
1945-1946 and a steady increase through the mid-1950s. The bill allowed unprecedented
numbers of single and married veterans, many of whom would not have been able to
attend college otherwise, to attend American universities. In addition, there was a
marked increase in the number of women seeking higher education. University campuses
across the country scrambled to build structures to accommodate the huge influx of
students.
In 1946, the University of Florida, like many universities, needed to provide
additional academic space, housing, support facilities, recreation and dining facilities for
its rapidly growing student body [4]. Yet, in 1946, there was very little extra funding for
massive building projects and, even if the funding had been available, there simply were
not enough building materials available to fill the needs [5]. During the war, most
industries had shifted into producing military goods to support the war effort. After the
close of the war, it took time for the economy to make the transition from war production
to consumer goods production. The University of Florida could not wait for the economy
to adjust, so they turned to the only entity in the United States that had a surplus after the
war, the military.
The military provided temporary structures to universities across the nation. These
structures not only helped to relieve the desperate need for housing on campus, but also were used for classrooms across campus. At the University of Florida, Flavet Village,
named for the Florida Veterans, was created in 1946 out of military barracks trucked in
from around the state [4]. The creation of Flavet Village marked the first family housing
area on the university campus. The housing needs of student families were very different
4
than those of single students and Flavet Village was the university’s first attempt to meet
these needs.
By 1950, the university had completed some of the first permanent post World War
II building projects on campus. These structures not only reflected the pressure for practicality and efficiency of the temporary structures, but also established the link between the collegiate gothic tradition of the campus and the modernist influences of that
time period. During the decade following the war, the number of buildings added to the
campus far exceeded the total from its first fifty years.
The new University of Florida campus had opened in Gainesville in 1906. From
1905 to 1925, William Augustus Edwards served as the architect to the State Board of
Control and the state’s first four institutions of higher learning. Edwards’ first structures on campus, Buckman and Thomas Halls, established the architectural connection between the University of Florida campus and well established universities in the northeastern United States and Europe [4]. The collegiate gothic tradition continued through the works of architect Rudolph Weaver, who served the Board of Control from
1925 through 1944.
The Board of Control officially appointed Guy Fulton, who had worked as Chief
Draftsman for Weaver, as architect in 1946 [6]. Fulton’s work during the post-war era reflected the social changes occurring both at the university and at the national level.
During his term from 1944-1956, Fulton established policies that reinforced the campus tradition of continuity. The foundation was established for the cohesiveness and harmony that would characterize the campus for the future.
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW
The decade following the close of World War II was a time of dramatic change in the United States. Although there has been much written about the social and architectural climate, there has been little investigation into the university’s role in reflecting national social and architectural trends of that era. Paul Venable Turner’s book, Campus: an American Planning Tradition, was an excellent resource in understanding the planning history of the American campus. The book included some information about the time period being studied in this investigation [7]. However, due to the wide scope of the book, Turner gave only a general evaluation of the era, focusing mainly on the planning issues on campus. This study will expand on that evaluation and will include more specific information about the campus architecture of the era.
In the process of comparing campus trends to national trends, this study emphasizes
historical information about the University of Florida. The widely recognized history of
the University of Florida, Gator History by Samuel Proctor, provided an insight into the
development of the university. Guide to the University of Florida and Gainesville by
Kevin McCarthy and Murray Laurie provided an overview of the buildings of the campus
and the surrounding community. [4, 8]. Sharon C. Blansett’s book, A History of
University of Florida Residence Facilities, provided information about the history of all
residence halls on campus, including some architectural descriptions of the buildings [9].
Blansett’s book described each dormitory in the order it was built on campus, including
buildings that no longer exist, such as Flavet Village. These history books provided the
5 6 background necessary to begin a more in-depth investigation into both the history and national importance of campus architecture.
UF and Modernism
Anne Catinna’s 1993 thesis “Years of Transition: Architecture on the University of
Florida Campus, 1944-1956” gave an overview of the architectural changes on the
University of Florida campus that took place during the post World War II era. Catinna stated that the architecture reflected international modern influences that were prevalent during that time, while the buildings maintained specific design elements that ensured compatibility with the older gothic structures on campus. Catinna’s study focused on two historically significant architectural examples from this time period, Tigert Hall and
Mallory/Yulee/Reid . Tigert Hall is the University Administration Building and the
Mallory/Yulee/Reid complex was the first women’s dormitory unit on campus. Both buildings were completed by 1950 by architect Guy Fulton for the State Board of
Control.
According to Catinna, Tigert Hall was the primary example of architectural transition on campus. In order to maintain compatibility, Fulton chose red brick, terra cotta roof tiles, and stone details used in existing campus buildings. However, the stone details were more restrained, focusing more on the functional aspects of design and conserving materials. Gothic design elements, such as the entry tower and parapet, were modified to reflect the modern style. Fulton eliminated gothic elaborations, such as quoins and gargoyles. The windows also reflected the new technology of the time, using extruded aluminum alloy casement and mullions. Catinna argued that this building was transitional due to its clear association with both collegiate gothic and international modern.
7
While Tigert Hall was transitional, Mallory/Yulee/Reid was more clearly influenced by international modern concepts. The construction methods and features reflected the utilitarian and functional nature of international modern design. However,
Fulton used red brick, roof tiles, and continuity of scale to maintain compatibility with the existing architectural context.
Catinna questioned why the drastic change from strictly collegiate gothic design to
international modern design occurred. Through evaluation of Board of Control minutes,
personal interviews, and newspaper accounts, Catinna concluded that the Board of
Control, Guy Fulton and national architectural trends contributed to the environment for change. However, it was University architect Guy Fulton alone who was responsible for maintaining the compatible nature of the new structures. In doing so he established long- standing university standards for compatibility in campus construction [6]. This study will expand on this analysis of Fulton and will analyze the interrelationships of post-war housing needs, university demographics, and national and international developments of the era.
Collegetown
As early as 1948, post-World War II housing was the subject of Bernard Horn’s
Master of Political Science thesis at Columbia University [10]. It is important to note that Horn actually lived in the veterans’ village that he studied, at a time when the complex was less than a year old. While this may have caused some biases within his study, for the purposes of this paper, Horn’s thesis can be used both as a sociological study and first hand account of life within a post-World War II veterans’ collegiate residence facility.
8
Collegetown, the focus of Horn’s study, was located at the former Army Post of
Embarkation and had the capacity to house approximately 25,000 soldiers [10]. As a housing community, Collegetown’s capacity was approximately 1200 units for student veteran families and 300 units for non-student veteran families [10]. Collegetown was grouped into three “towns,” and it took an hour to walk from one side of the complex to the other. In order to justify his study of the veterans’ housing situation, Horn needed to establish that the veterans’ housing was, in fact, substantially different in comparison to typical housing situations. Horn described the characteristics of most housing communities as being planned, permanent in structure, designed for permanent residents, and fostering community common interests [10]. Horn argued that the veterans’ complex he studied, Collegetown, failed to meet the “permanent” and “permanent residence” criteria for a typical housing community. Therefore, Collegetown could be considered to be an atypical housing community. Horn used this fact along with personal observations to hypothesize that the veterans lived differently than other people because they were housed differently.
Horn began his study with direct observation of Collegetown residents followed by intensive interviews with a small sample of residents [10]. Horn first interviewed residents in a leadership role within the community, described as a “pioneer” group, who entered the community in fall of 1946. For the purpose of comparison, Horn then interviewed other “pioneer” group members who did not take active roles within the community. In an effort to expand his study beyond its limited sample group, Horn disseminated a written questionnaire to the remaining residents via the Collegetown bi-
9 weekly newsletter [10]. Two hundred and forty-seven of the seven hundred questionnaires were returned and analyzed by Horn.
The questionnaires revealed that student families, rather than non-student families, dominated Collegetown activities, evident in the number of questionnaires that they returned. Although the non-student families represented 23 percent of the tenants living in Collegetown, their participation levels were not proportionate [10]. Horn also found that long-term residents were more likely to return the survey. The surveys, then, did not represent a random sample of residents in Collegetown, but an analysis of 247 student veteran families in a temporary residence facility [10].
The results of the survey revealed that the median age of men in Collegetown was
27.6 years old, wives 25.8 years old, and children 1.96 years old [10]. Couples had been married an average of 3.3 years, and moved about 1.6 times a year [10]. 15 percent of husbands worked full-time, 22 percent worked part-time, while 19 percent of wives worked full-time and 11 percent worked part-time [10]. Not surprisingly, Horn found that couples who had been married longer were less likely to move often, more likely to have children and less likely for the wife to work [10]. These wives also expected to be living in Collegetown for a longer duration than their counterparts who had been married for a shorter time [10].
Horn commented on the striking homogeneity of Collegetown residents [10]. Most residents were from a middle-class background and were pursuing graduate and professional degrees in preparation for a middle-class future. Horn asserted that this homogeneity in background, interests, and situation created high tenant morale and community resident satisfaction [10]. In order to measure tenant satisfaction, one might
10
usually look to the tenant move-out numbers. This was not, however, an accurate
measure in the case of Collegetown. In New York City, like many American cities, there
was an acute housing shortage after World War II and dissatisfied tenants may have had
no other alternative for housing. As a result, Horn used the questionnaire as a tool for
tenant satisfaction self-reporting [10]. Horn used four factors in determining the
“rootedness” and resulting satisfaction of residents: the high number of residents who
intended to stay in Collegetown for the duration of the husband’s schooling, the small
number of residents who continued to look for housing alternatives in New York City,
the high percentage of residents who reported preferring to live in Collegetown to New
York City, and the high number of residents who preferred nighttime recreation in
Collegetown rather than New York City [10].
After determining that the residents were, in fact, “rooted” in the Collegetown
community and some preferred it to New York City, Horn questioned why. Horn
reported that the resident satisfaction of tenants at Collegetown was due mainly to the
homogenous makeup of the tenants [10]. Horn determined this by evaluating the
favorable responses to questions about “community spirit” and “similar interests” of the
residents. Horn’s conclusions were validated through the individual interviews he
conducted with residents [10].
Many residents did not respond favorably to a question that asked about the
presence of “minority racial and ethnic groups”. Only 7 of the 247 people who
responded liked “the presence of minority racial and ethnic groups, the racial tolerance”
(Horn, p.47). The individual interviews also revealed a dislike of non-student neighbors,
one resident saying that, “there is a real difference in intellectual interest,” [10]. Horn
11 repeatedly cited quotations from interviews that reflected satisfaction with the similar background, interests, and situations of student Collegetown residents [10]. Horn concluded that the positive response to living with “one’s own kind” is a cause of tenant
“rootedness” and results in high tenant morale [10].
A second factor in the cause of resident “rootedness” was the physical location of
Collegetown. As opposed to New York City, Collegetown was in a suburban, semi-rural setting [10]. Horn stated that residents preferred the proximity to nature, the fresh air, and open green spaces [10]. In addition, residents felt that their children were safe and they enjoyed the ability to have pets of every shape and size [10]. It is important to note the Horn found no evidence that the physical structure of the temporary housing units themselves provided any support for resident satisfaction [10]. In fact, Horn determined the resident satisfaction rate was high in spite of the less than ideal physical structures.
Although Horn found high levels of resident satisfaction and high tenant morale, there were, of course, some aspects of Collegetown with which residents were dissatisfied. Even though residents expressed satisfaction with the suburban setting in some respects, fifty percent of residents complained of the high cost of commuting to the city [10]. Horn clarified this finding in his interviews by questioning whether it was the monetary cost or time cost of the commute that they disliked. One resident responded that it was in fact the monetary cost, saying that, due to traffic, living within the boroughs outside of Manhattan may not have actually taken time off their commute [10]. Other sources of moderate dissatisfaction included a lack of shopping facilities, the distance from city, the high cost of suburban living, and the lack of service facilities [10]. This
12 study will compare Collegetown as a case study of national developments with the Flavet
Villages at the University of Florida.
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODS
There were three methods of research implemented for this study; archival, on-site investigations, and oral history. First, a search was conducted in the University of
Florida Archives Library, which holds an extensive collection of university records. The
Archives Library not only holds the written records for the university, such as the presidential papers, but also the photography collection of the university. The archives provided maps and aerial photographs of the campus from the post-World War II era. In addition, they provided photographs from the post-war period that showed residents and the structures. Perhaps the most important documents for the Flavet study were the minutes from the Board of Commissioners meetings from 1948-1953. The Board of
Commissioners was a group of Flavet residents elected to serve as a governing body of the village. These minutes described aspects of living in Flavet such as childcare, parking and traffic, the laundry facility, heating fuel costs, and self-government issues such as voting. The minutes, however, sparked more questions that were not fully addressed in the minutes. The minutes were not always complete, and many meetings were simply not recorded at all.
In order to find accurate information about how the permanent residence halls were designed, it was necessary to locate the original plans and specifications for each building. Currently, University of Florida building records are kept in several different locations. Most buildings fall under the care of the Physical Plant Division, and therefore, those building plans and specifications are held at their office on Radio Road..
13 14
However, the University of Florida Housing Division maintains the residence halls and building records for those buildings are kept at the Housing office on Museum Road.
After reviewing the original plans and specification, it was necessary to compare the documents to the buildings themselves through an on-site investigation. The on-site investigations were conducted in accordance to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Historic Preservation [11]. The checklist for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings was also used as a guide how to document, evaluate, and assess the residence halls, [12]. The checklist recommends that the first step is checking available documentation, which was included as part of the archival research for this study. Next, it is recommended that the historic character of the building be evaluated through an on-site investigation. This investigation should identify the character defining features of the building, which may include both the interior and exterior form and details of the building, as well as the materials. Any additions or alterations made to the building should be noted and evaluated as well.
In this study, the residence halls were evaluated based on their standing as physical evidence of the university’s past. The character defining features of the residence halls were compared with both campus buildings and national housing buildings of the same era. Finally, the architectural integrity of the buildings and their physical condition was evaluated. This step was especially important in this study, due to the many alterations and maintenance issues concerning these buildings.
In an effort to document the buildings for future preservation projects, Florida
Master Site File Forms were completed for all significant university structures built between 1948 and 1956. Master Site File forms are the first step in documenting historic
15
structures with the state of Florida (Appendix A,B). The form includes information on the
structural components, design, architect, contractor, ownership and history of alterations.
Accurately completing the forms required multiple on-site investigations supplemented
with the archival research at Physical Plant, Division of Housing and the University
Archives.
Since none of the Flavet structures were still standing, making an on-site
investigation impossible, it was necessary to conduct oral history interviews to obtain the
missing information. A project was initiated to locate and interview residents of the
original Flavet community. With the assistance of the Samuel Proctor Oral History
Program and the guidance of the program’s director, Dr. Julian Pleasants, oral history
interviews were conducted with 10 residents who lived in Flavet Village. In addition to
Dr. Pleasants’s guidance, Donald A. Ritchie’s Doing Oral History was used as a resource for understanding the history, process, ethics, and legal issues involved in conducting interviews [13].
The Oral History Process
An oral history project typically begins with research into the written record, as was the case in this study. From this background research, a series of questions were developed that addressed the pertinent issues raised in the background research
(Appendix C,D). Since the archival evidence indicated that males and females living in
Flavet had dramatically different daily routines, it was necessary to formulate two different sets of questions, one for the female residents and one for the males. These questions were designed to engage the interviewee, avoiding questions that prompted a one-word answer. Ethical issues were considered, such as avoiding questions that may have violated the privacy of the interviewee or be deemed inappropriate by university
16
standards. The questions covered in the interview were grouped into the following categories; personal background, university experience, housing issues, social issues,
village politics, and economics. Every effort was made to ensure that the questions did
not persuade the interviewee into giving a particular response.
During this question formulation phase, a search for interviewees was conducted.
The search involved locating individuals who lived in the village during the study time
period and obtaining consent for these individuals to sit for a recorded interview. Before
interviews were conducted, oral history techniques were reviewed by assisting in the
transcription, audit-editing, editing, and summarizing of other oral history interviews for
the Oral History Program.
Interviews were conducted during the fall of 2004 with individuals who lived in the
village between 1946 and 1953. The Sam Proctor Oral History Program staff assisted in the transcribing and editing the Flavet interviews. The Flavet interviews have been edited and are awaiting final review in order to be sent out for interviewee review. It is important for the interviewee to review the transcript in order to catch any errors or to clarify names of places that may only be known to the interviewee.
It was important to pursue oral history interviews for this study in order to gain a first hand account of life in the village. It was also crucial to do the interviews at this time because it has been over fifty years since the residents lived in the village.
Throughout the study, evidence found through one method, such as archival research, was confirmed through other methods, such as oral history. The result is a body of knowledge that is more accurate than simply using one method. Since this study links social issues and architectural issues on campus, it was necessary to use a multi-method
17 approach. Generally, information on social issues was gathered through archival and oral history research, while architectural issues were investigated mainly through archival and on-site investigations. In both instances, archives provided the initial information, and that information was either confirmed or denied through oral history and on-site methods.
CHAPTER 5 HOUSING IN POST WAR AMERICA
Architectural Context
The beginning of the year 1945 was met with optimism tempered with rational thinking by American architects. According to Architectural Record editor Kenneth K.
Stowell, architects were far from idle during the war years [14]. Stowell states that architects were designing, "at a breakneck speed, new munitions plants, warehouses, transportation facilities, hospitals, housing, for a truly all-out two-front war," [14].
Architects and engineers were developing new technologies to improve efficiency and to conserve limited materials, time, and manpower. In addition, most designs occurred under some level of secrecy, allowing for little to no public acknowledgement of their achievements at that time. Perhaps Stowell recognized the need for some kind of public acknowledgement of their achievements. Stowell encouraged architects to continue to meet the military needs of the country, while clinging to the hope of being able to proceed with peacetime civilian designs at some unknown date in the future [14].
When the war was finally over, American architects were certainly ready and eager to embrace their civilian design responsibilities. Edwin Bateman Morris, during an address to architectural alumni at the University of Pennsylvania on V-E Day, - recognized the fight to promote modernism after World War I, but claimed that the fight itself hindered the free expression of the style [15]. Morris called for new freedom in architecture, based on modernism and following its syntax [15]. Morris gave as an example of the prophesized freedom that an architect could use a column with entasis
18 19
rather that a cast-iron pipe, emphasizing that the post World War II era would be a
transitional time for architecture in the United States [15]. Morris cited a statistic that
there would be a 25 percent increase in volume from architect's previous best year, and
that this increase would be not only an increase in quantity, but in architectural quality.
Morris reiterated that, "any architect living in the era to come will have lived in a great epoch of his profession," [15]. Morris’s predictions proved to be correct in that the
decade following the end of World War II did become an era of architectural transition
for the United States. The transition not only allowed for the expression of new
architectural elements, but also for the development of technological advances in the
building profession.
At the close of World War II, the United States had stepped forth as the world
leader in politics and industry, yet according to Gelernter, professor of Architecture at the
University of Colorado and author of A History of American Architecture: Buildings in
Their Cultural and Technological Context, its modern architecture was rooted in Europe.
In France, Le Corbusier influenced the creation of high-rise housing with his Marseille
block. The housing tower took advantage of new technologies in concrete design to form
"vertical neighborhoods" that would encourage inhabitants from varying social and
economic backgrounds to live in the same community. Towers could be connected at the
third floor to allow occupants the freedom to move from "neighborhood" to
"neighborhood". He believed that Modernism could change society for the better, to his
idea of what was better. Le Corbusier believed that his Marseille block symbolized the
best of modernism and what was best for post war living.
20
The National Building Crisis
The crisis of America’s cities was clearly evident at the close of the war in 1945.
In a 1945 address to the Conference of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions in the post-
War World in New York, Henry Churchill reviewed the “physical decay and economic constipation” of America’s cities [16]. The events of the great depression and then
World War II had taken their toll. Churchill described the business centers as deteriorating, surrounded by old residential area turned slums [16]. The upper class homes were located further out of town, with the soon to be booming middle-class
residences even further out [16].
In an effort by President Truman to remedy these issues, the United States legislated the Housing Act of 1949 [17]. One result was public housing towers,
influenced by Le Corbusier, yet lacking in diversity of residents. The towers were
symbols of the American government's allegiance to the ideals put forth in Roosevelt's
New Deal, that everyone deserved a place to live [17]. Unfortunately, Urban Renewal, as
it is now known, was not the urban utopia of which Le Corbusier dreamed. Urban
Renewal along with the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, actually created a whole new set
of ailments for city centers, such as pollution, overcrowding, and the loss of middle and
upper class resident tax base. These problems still persist today in many American cities
[17]. These developments would be factors in the movement to legislate the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Acute Shortage of Residential Housing
Housing expediter Wilson W. Wyatt, Jr., head of the National Housing Agency,
was charged with the mission of finding ways of providing the materials for the new
homes to be built [18]. As housing expediter, Wyatt proposed the Veteran’s Emergency
21
Housing act, which called for a cutback in non-residential housing construction in order
to devote all construction efforts to meeting the acute housing needs of returning veterans
[18]. He also made four construction recommendations, as cited by Architectural Record editor Kenneth K. Stowell [19]. The first was that small simple houses with very basic equipment should be built, in an effort to conserve materials. The second was that new technology for the standardization of parts should be implemented in order to increase the productivity per man hour [19]. This recommendation, which was to be implemented over a ten year span, may have led to the creation of the “Time –Saver Standards” for engineers guide that later appeared in Architectural Record by 1950. Also recommended was an increase in the efficient distribution of building materials, a direction which may have been related to the vast improvements of the national highway system that occurred in the 1950s. Third, Wyatt called for the review of restrictive practices, such as codes and construction labor laws that hindered the speed at which the housing could be built.
Finally, Wyatt recommended the construction of large scale communities that took advantage of low cost land [19]. This list of recommendations had long lasting effects on
the way Americans lived for years to come. The list incorporated nearly all aspects of
American life, from industry to transportation, to community design, to the luxuries
available to individual families. This list laid the framework for the way American
communities would develop for the next ten years and beyond.
Wyatt’s recommendations were certainly not created in isolation. On October 8,
1945, Antonin Raymond made some very similar recommendations to the New York
Institute of Finance [20]. Just a few months after the close of the war, Raymond
recognized some of the same key factors in providing fast and efficient affordable
22
housing to Americans that would later be recommended by Wyatt [20]. Raymond
emphasized the need to reform the way houses were built. He explained the need for
standardization in manufacturing of the 30,000 parts of houses, just as Henry Ford
revolutionized the automobile industry with the assembly line [20]. Raymond also acknowledged the need for neighborhoods to be thoughtfully planned in order to, “secure the investment and to insure economy in its use” [20]. These planned neighborhoods seem not unlike the large-scale efficient neighborhoods recommended by Wyatt.
The GI Bill and Housing
The government also recognized the need to provide funding for veterans to purchase new homes for their families. As a part of the 1944 Servicemen’s
Readjustment Act, commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights, the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) provided special VA loans that required no down payment for veterans purchasing their homes [21]. This same bill offered to pay for the tuition for
GI’s to attend universities when they returned home, as well as providing loans to purchase farms and businesses. Of the ten million veterans who returned from the war in
1945 and 1946, one million opted to attend some kind of higher education [22]. The majority of the other nine million veterans sought jobs and housing in which to raise their growing families. The FHA provided a means for these veterans to purchase homes without a large down payment.
Modernism in Residential Design
In his 1945 article in Journal of the American Institute of Architects, Antonin
Raymond explained the challenge of adapting the modernist philosophy and aesthetic to residential design in the United States.
23
It is no excuse for an architect to say a building is hideous because it could not afford to be beautiful. In fact, it is often just because of the economy of means required to achieve an end, that a building has attained a memorable quality. Thus I have often found greater beauty in the simple marginal house, whether it be in the Pennsylvania countryside or in far- off Japan, than in the expensive monstrosity on Long Island that has everything the architect could pile on it and into it.[20]
Due to extremely limited budgets, Raymond challenged residential architects to rethink their ideas of what constituted beauty [20]. In short, Raymond supported the modernist philosophy that brilliant efficiency of function is beautiful in itself [20]. There is intellectual value because if its functionality, therefore it is beautiful. The luxuries of past residential design for wealthy clients should no longer be a priority for architects.
Instead, designing for the problem at hand- that of providing functional shelter for millions of Americans- should be the architect’s priority [20]. In the years to come, however, architects began a balancing act of traditional aesthetics and modern principles within the confines of residential design.
Modern Ideals and References to the Past
Parallel with the spread of international modernist influences, the popularity of traditional building forms persisted. This was especially prevalent in housing, because of the association with a desire for stability and establishing roots after the deprivations of war. The term “colonial” was widely applied to buildings with classical references such as columns and decorative shutters. These were freely integrated with more modern features such as the “Chicago” or “Picture Window”.
Architectural critics like Vernon de Mars criticized the reluctance to abandon traditional home designs just after the war [23]. In a 1946 article entitled “Look
Homeward, Housing”, Mars asks, “why is the average speculative development such a
24
naïve and miserable example of modern achievement as compared with our motor cars,
bathrooms, and kitchens,” [23]. Mars also contrasted the state of government housing projects versus these speculative developments [23]. Mars insisted that government
sponsored apartment buildings provided plenty of communal space, but not enough
individual space, while the suburban neighborhoods provided plenty of personal space,
but were lacking in true community spaces [23]. Mars criticized both types of housing
for falling victim to dangers of mass production [23]. Mass production, according to
Mars, had led to the creation of “an average unit and type solution for a limited social or
income group” [23]. The idea of streamlining production and increasing efficiency, some
of the key principles of modernism, had led to homogenized designs for both types of
housing [23].
Furthermore, there was a growing struggle between architects and the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) over the appropriateness of modern designs in a
residential setting. The FHA, which provided loans to many of the new home buyers,
promoted “neighborhood stability,” which resulted in strict regulation of residential
properties in order to protect the financial investment of the FHA [22]. FHA approval of
homes was extremely important to a residential builder and developer because without
that, a buyer would have almost no chance of getting bank approval for a loan. The FHA,
through its emphasis on “neighborhood stability”, lowered the ratings scores for homes
that were particularly modern in design. The FHA suspected that modernism was a
design fad, and endorsed more traditionally designed homes as safer investments [22].
The result was a new kind of residential design, the ranch home.
25
The development of the ranch home was a hybrid of Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Prairie
style” mixed with traditional housing elements. The homes recalled the strong horizontal
lines and low-pitched roofs of the Wright Prairie style, but also relied on traditional
exterior features such as decorative shutters [24], [22]. “Most people appeared to want to
combine the latest in technology, planning, building materials, and labor-saving devices with the outer shell of the older Cape Cod cottage,” [21]. Perhaps, the traditional elements were used as a crutch, in an effort to appease the critical FHA appraisers and improve the rating scores of the modernist influenced home.
Despite the design incongruities, the ranch style home was a very popular solution
to the housing crisis of the mid to late 1940s. During the war years, American
manufacturers helped to keep the American dream of owning a home alive even through
the dismal rationing and shortages of materials. The Anderson corporation even gave
away “new dream home planning scrapbooks” to families so that when the war ended,
they could start construction as soon as possible [21]. American families were eager to
move in to the new ranch homes and looked forward to using all the modern advances in
home designs. The ranch homes’ horizontal design eliminated the second story and the
stairs, a factor that many housewives appreciated [22]. The plan had fewer interior walls than houses before the war and most ranch homes included large windows that overlooked private backyards [22].
Suburbia
The study also found a shift in the design of these new suburbs. Instead of small, isolated groups of homes, new neighborhoods were being designed with schools, churches, and recreation as apart of the development [25]. In support of these suburbs
“high-speed limited access trafficways and improved automobiles” allowed for the
26
expected forty minute commute to place of employment [25]. By 1946, architectural
critics were beginning to criticize the new neighborhood developments, claiming that the
new neighborhood designs, “turn [their] back on everything around it,” [23].
The Residents
The homes of suburbia were built for a specific market and set of buyers. These
buyers were typically young, white, first-time buyers and their families. Of course, many of these buyers were the veterans. Special practices and policies were set forth by the
builders and the FHA to ensure that only the target buyers could purchase homes in the suburban developments [22]. Through technical bulletins and loan policies, the FHA
ensured that neighborhoods designed for white buyers would only be sold to white buyers
[22]. Under the guise of protecting neighborhood character and investment, the loan
policies of the FHA at that time discriminated against any buyer who was not white in the
new suburban neighborhoods. Due to these policies and the practices of the developers
themselves, the new suburban neighborhood residents were homogeneous in race,
income, and background.
Levittown
Arthur Levitt and the Levitt Organization built some of the most recognized
examples of the post-war suburban building trend. In 1946, the Levitt Organization
began building the first of three Levittowns, a planned community of approximately
17,000 homes of similar modern design located in Long Island, New York [26]. The vast
community included everything from public schools to public pools within its 5,000 plus
acres [26] [22].
Levittown designs also boasted the use of the latest technological advances, such as
the use of wide expanses of glass across the back of a house and the amenity of a Wright
27
inspired three-way fireplace [22]. Levitt Corporation relied on research to inform their
home designs, a practice favored by modernist giants Richard Neutra and Eero Saarinen
[22]. This research included more than just determining design preferences in home
buyers. Research in the fields of child development, sociology, and psychology were
affecting the design of the typical home in the late 1940s [22]. The large glass expanses
overlooking the backyard were a result of changes in the dynamics of the American
family [22]. Mothers allowed their children more freedom within the safe confines of a family room that overlooked a child-safe backyard in which to play [22].
In addition to relying on social research, Levitt took advantage of mass production techniques to lower the construction costs and produce more units faster [22]. The research proved valuable and the homes in the first, second and third Levittowns were wildly popular. The communities met the needs of young families in search of the ultimate technological home in the ideal community within their budget.
Just as architects recoiled at some of the results of modernism in the hands of the non- modern, researchers were concerned that these uniform, mass-produced
environments might actually be detrimental to families. Critics of the mega
neighborhoods emerged throughout the 1950s and 1960s, citing that the homogenization,
of both the built and social environment, was hindering the social experience of
American families [22].
Prefabricated Housing Design
The houses in Levittown incorporated some pre-assembly features to bring costs
down and speed construction. By 1950, prefabricated buildings were viewed not as a low
cost alternative to traditional buildings, but as a development of new technology in building [27]. The benefits of these buildings were their ability to be moved and their
28
efficient design of space, yet their cost was not necessarily cheaper than permanent
structures due to the lack of banking support. However, Architectural Record, in May of
1950, highlighted the technological advances in materials and flexibility used by the
Acorn house, a prototype for prefabricated housing [27]. The importance today of these prefabricated structures is not the structures themselves, but the architectural ideas that made them possible- efficiency, new technology and materials, modularity, and flexibility of the space itself.
The Lustron Corporation attempted one of the most famous of the prefabricated solutions to the housing crisis. Lustron began designing the steel and porcelain clad structures in 1946 and with the aid of 34 million dollars from the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation [28]. A Lustron house incorporated the technology and design advances of the war to create a house kit that could theoretically be assembled by an unskilled adult.
However, due to union pressure and widely varying building codes, the Lustron home was usually assembled by skilled construction workers and craftsmen, which inevitably raised the total cost of the built structure [28]. In 1949, an inexpensive frame construction house cost approximately $6,500, but the final built cost of a Lustron home of the same living area could be around $10,000 [28].
There were some innovative technologies that Lustron incorporated into their
homes that might have enticed buyers to spend more for the prefabricated home. Lustron
homes were advertised as nearly maintenance-free, termite-proof, fire-resistant and long
lasting [28]. The early Westchester models boasted a unique radiant heating system to
efficiently heat the interior. The houses came equipped with a clothes dryer and, oddly, a
combination dish washer and clothes washer known as a "Thor" [28]. Since efficiency
29 was key in manufacturing the homes, designs were very simple, with little or no adornment beyond a choice of four paint colors. Lustron embraced the simplicity of modernism, marketing it as an extremely clean home.
Despite the technological innovations, Lustron Corporation was in major financial trouble by 1950. The company fell victim to a combination of major business problems, from poor financial planning to bad press [28]. Despite its brief existence, the company had served the purpose of providing limited relief to the desperate housing shortage just after the war.
Designing for the Environmental Setting
After the end of World War II, architects took a different approach to design to solve the new problems of that generation. The Lustron approach used technological advances to maximize housing output, using the limited building resources efficiently.
Another result of the new design approach was the study of global setting and its relationship to architectural forms. Through a series of articles in Architectural Record, each climate zone was described alongside new architecture that responded to that zone in a way that improved the comfort of the occupants [29]. John Rannels, author of the section that covered the tropic zone, explained that design in the tropics should blend both the traditional architecture of the area and modern architectural design. Rannels insisted that the traditional, or vernacular, housing of the area most likely addressed the climate issues through its design elements, such as deep porches in the southern United
States to shade the home from the sun. Architect Thomas J. Biggs, A.I.A. of Biggs,
Weir, and Chandler in Jackson, Mississippi said, “Present buildings do not solve, for our time, this condition nearly as well as pre-1860 buildings did,” [29]. Biggs explained that the traditional southern “dog-trot” created a breezeway for relief from the intense heat of
30
the sun. Biggs explained that “Southern Mansions” were designed so that upper levels
were cooled by cross ventilation while lower levels were cooled through shading. Biggs
acknowledged the emphasis on functionality in post-World War II architecture, but
insisted that the traditional designs of the south had already addressed the climate issues
through architectural elements; therefore, Biggs stated, “I expect to see a considerable
revival of the old southern forms,” [29].
Rannels, however, insisted that the traditional forms should be combined with
modern technological advances. Rannels explained that it was important to consider the traditional construction materials of an area, such as thatching for roofs in tropical island areas, but also to evaluate the possibility of using a more modern approach, such as coast concrete. In addition, Rannels made recommendations for building in the topics, such as
orienting the buildings to prevailing winds for maximum ventilation, studying sun paths
to inform the placement of windows, and drawing from the traditional design elements to
inspire shading devices and floor plans [29].
National Trends In Residence Hall Design
The September of 1945, Architectural Forum published this description of the
architectural climate on American University campuses after the close of World War II,
“the national conflict between the eclectic and modern approach to architecture is coming
into its sharpest focus on the university campus,” [30]. Architectural Forum, a strong
proponent of modernism, had a long history of reporting on campus architecture as a way
of promoting the modernist movement, [7]. After the close of World War II,
Architectural Forum reported that many university campuses at that time were struggling
with the question of what design language to use in the new campus buildings to be
constructed after the close of the war, and many were turning to modernism [30].
31
Architectural critics of that time were calling for the immediate shift to modern
designs on campuses for the benefit on the students. Hugh Stubbins, Jr. in the April 1946
issue of Architectural Record stated that campus housing had long followed national
housing trends [31]. According to Stubbins, the result was architecture that was not only backward, but also not appropriate for the academic setting. In one example, Stubbins referred to a 1944 Army study that determined a significant loss of sight of students attending West Point [31]. Stubbins insisted that the loss of sight was due to poor lighting, especially lack of natural light, in the Tudor gothic structures [31]. The modern designs, taking advantage of innovations in glass production, allowed much more natural light to penetrate into buildings. Stubbins stated that college campuses should be using this research, along with new social research, to develop new architectural approaches for the college campus [31].
According to Architectural Forum, the University of Oklahoma abandoned their collegiate gothic architectural tradition on campus in order to embrace the modern aesthetic. “The proposal was breath-taking in its refusal to deal further with the
University’s tattered Gothic program, in its espousal of completely modern planning and construction,” [30]. Oklahoma University supported its departure from the collegiate gothic by studying the architectural trends of east coast universities, in particular
Wheaton, and Yale [30]. Henry L. Kamphoefner, university professor of architecture and head of the Campus Planning Group, cited that the success of modern residence halls at both Wheaton and Yale, therefore Oklahoma University proceeded with the modern approach to solving their post-war campus housing shortage [30]. In an effort to protect the architectural “harmony” of the campus, Kamphoefner stressed the importance of
32 using, “matching color, in the same materials and textures as the adjoining buildings, and in a similar scale,” [30]. Yet, the architecture of the Oklahoma campus is not simply a story of transition from gothic to modern. Also patterned by the architecture of Yale,
Oklahoma University used colonial design language as a transition from the gothic to modern [30]. The 1943 men’s dormitories were built, “not in the Gothic manner, but in the Colonial” [30]. The reliance on colonial elements is evident once again in the housing structures, this time in the residence halls of a public university campus [30].
Oklahoma University was making the making the move from gothic to modernism in their residence halls with a colonial transition period.
Figure 5.1 Baker House at Massachusetts Institute of Technology [32]
33
One of the most significant landmarks of modernism from this time is a campus
residence hall. Alvar Aalto built Baker House residence hall on the banks of the Charles
River at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus in 1949. Baker House represented the modern concept of research based design, with social spaces designed to signify MIT’s evolution from commuter school to residential university [33]. Aalto also responded to the environmental setting of the site, curving the structure to respond to the
river and creating captivating views in the interior social spaces, such as the dining hall,
[33]. Aalto’s design addressed the changing social community of the rapidly expanding
MIT campus, providing central social spaces in which students could form a community
[33]. Aalto’s consideration of environmental and social settings became hallmarks of
successful residence hall design during the post war era.
Summary
The decade following the end of World War II was a time of significant changes in
society, education and housing in the United States. The large-scale return of veterans
resulted in the housing crisis that defined residential architecture of that time. In some
ways, Americans appreciated the modernist approach, such as the functionalism and the
flexibility of modern design. On the other hand, Americans were not ready to completely
break with the architecture of the past, particularly in the area of housing. The social and
architectural changes of the post-war era were reflected on the campuses to which large
numbers of veterans returned. This was especially true of the University of Florida.
.
CHAPTER 6 THE POST-WAR UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS: UNPRECEDENTED DEMAND FOR HOUSING FAMILIES AND WOMEN
The Campus Context
The University of Florida, like other American universities, was challenged during
World War II to address the problems of decreased student populations and national
shortages in materials and equipment. The 1946 Biennial Report of the President of the
University of Florida to the state Board of Control praised the policies put forth by the
university to solve those problems. The university gave many professors a leave of
absence to serve in the war, while steering the remaining faculty to pursue research geared toward helping the war effort [5]. This allowed the university to reduce the number of faculty on payroll while student enrollment was low, yet these faculty members were available to teach upon the students’ return to campus. The faculty that remained on campus conducted government funded research. In fact, President John J.
Tigert stated that, “the cost of operation of the University was largely shifted to the
Federal Government,” [5]. Some of this research included aiding in the training of military personnel in 3-5 month programs, such as the Army Specialized Training
Program, from March of 1943 to December of 1944 [5]. Through these creative policies, the university was able to sustain itself through the financially difficult war years.
During the war, Americans responded by giving their best skills to the war effort.
In the case of many architects, that was designing military and engineering structures to be used at home and abroad. In the same manner, the university responded to World War
34 35
II by donating their biggest assets, minds and dollars to conduct research. Research was
particularly important in the World War II effort because many American believed that
technology would win the war.
Enrollment
According to the University of Florida registrar, the total enrollment for the 1944-
1945 school year was 1,961 students [5]. The following year, enrollment at the
University jumped to 6,771, which was 750 students more than in the 1939-1940 school year. These figures indicate that not only did the University recover the student numbers that it held before the war, it also grew by 750 students. This return to pre-World War II enrollment numbers was expected, but the university was not wholly prepared for the
rapid growth that would continue well into the 1950s.
This drastic increase in university population had many causes, such as the wide
scale acceptance of women to the university, but much of the increase was due to the
increased numbers of returning servicemen. By 1946, approximately two-thirds of the
students attending the university were veterans. The framework for this change in
student population was set up while the war was still in progress through the
establishment of the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act in 1944 [34]. This act was
established by the wartime Congress as a way of both showing appreciation to those who
served and also to aid in the adjustment from wartime to peacetime mentality [34]. As
the war came to an end, the act evolved into the GI Bill of Rights, which included
financial support for servicemen attending institutions of higher education [34]. The
result was approximately 1 million veterans attending US colleges and universities in
1946. When Flavet residents were asked about what role the GI Bill played in their
education, most said that they would not have been able to attend school without it.
36
Clearly, the creation of and popularity of the bill encouraged the sharp increase in enrollment at the University of Florida.
The country as a whole was also being inundated with returning servicemen at this time. Six million GIs returned from service to the United States in 1945 and four million the next year [22]. The return of the servicemen is credited with causing the significant increase in population after the close of World War II, commonly known as the baby boom. At the same time, universities were experiencing a boom of their populations as well. Of the ten million veterans who returned by 1946, approximately one million chose to attend universities under the GI Bill nationwide. The number of schools in the United
States at that time doubled, and the number of two-year colleges tripled [34]. As the total population rose in the United States, so did enrollment at the University of Florida.
UF Housing Shortage 1946
Although the University of Florida was not completely prepared for the post-war changes that took place in 1946-1947, university officials worked quickly to make the most of the situation. University President Tigert offered some excuse for the lack of preparedness, stating that the “war ended sooner than generally expected, and demobilization was much more rapid than had been planned,” [5]. In reference to the GI
Bill, Tigert stated that it was not possible to, “foresee all the benefits which would be provided for veterans” [5]. Furthermore, the president went on to say that even the late
President Franklin D. Roosevelt underestimated the impact of the bill, forecasting that only 6 percent of veterans would even want to go to school.
University officials, however, were not completely without foresight. In 1945, the
Florida Legislature established a contingent fund in the event that veteran enrollment exceeded the expected numbers [5]. President Tigert implied that many veterans seeking
37
enrollment would have been turned away by the state if this fund had not been in place
[5]. The university also benefited from the wartime policies set up to retain the staff
and the faculty through leave of absence, rather than simply letting them go [5]. These
faculty and staff were promptly called back to the university on 1946 to ease the burden
of the increasing student population.
Student Demographics
The University of Florida student body before World War II consisted of
approximately 99 percent single males, 1 percent married males, with rare occasions of
acceptance of females if the coursework were not offered at other state institutions. After the war, Veteran enrollment at the university made up nearly two-thirds of the student body and many of these veterans were married with children [5]. Single veterans were
able to live in the dormitories already on campus, although they were quickly becoming
very crowded. The university could not house married families in the existing dormitories
on campus, even if there had been room. These new families had very different needs
than a single veteran who arrived on campus with only a duffle bag and his GI check.
Married veterans brought their spouses and children, and all kinds of furniture and
supplies that come with a family.
The federal government, which provided the same amount of tuition money for
single veterans as for married veterans, would not be providing any funding for this
housing crisis [5]. The university was left with the question of how to provide housing
options that these new families could afford, while already struggling to provide enough
classrooms and housing for the single males. The funds allotted to the university for the
crisis would not be enough to build all new structures, and there was no time to build
them. The housing needed to be extremely inexpensive in order for the veterans to afford
38
it, and it needed to be available almost immediately. In addition, the housing needed to
be appropriate for families, something the university had never provided for in the past.
The dilemma university officials faced at that time was similar to the housing shortage
that plagued the nation as a whole.
Campus Plan 1946-1950
Figure 6.1 University of Florida Campus Map, Fall 1945 [35]
At the close of World War II in 1945, the University of Florida consisted of
approximately twenty-five buildings that provided classrooms, offices, housing,
recreation and administration space on campus [35]. All buildings on campus conveyed
collegiate gothic influences and were constructed of red brick in a variety of bonds with
clay tile roofing material. Due to the war, there had been little construction on campus
since the completion of Fletcher residence hall in 1939. University Avenue defined the
edges of campus to the north with agriculture fields surrounding the campus to the south
and west. Southwest Ninth Street enclosed the campus to the east, with the exception of
P.K. Young Laboratory School (now the College of Education), which was just across
39
Ninth Street. There were no buildings located south of the university Auditorium and
none west of Florida Field.
Figure 6.2 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1947 [36]
By the summer of 1947, the university had acquired a considerable number of temporary structures from military surplus, including Flavet I, II, and III [36]. Many of these temporary structures were housing facilities, which were placed to the south of the established campus. A few temporary buildings were placed within the limits of the established campus, such as a reading room to the west of the Library (now Smather’s
Library East) an administration annex to the east of Language Hall (now Anderson Hall),
classrooms to the west of Science Hall (now Keene-Flint Hall), and a recreation hall
south of the Florida Union (now Dauer Hall). Facilities for the School of Architecture
were housed in temporary structures south of the University Auditorium; these included
40
Grove Hall on the site of the 1979 Architecture Building. Approximately twenty
temporary housing structures were placed to the south of Stadium Road to accommodate
single veterans and returning students.
All three Flavet villages were located south of Stadium Road as well. Flavet I was
south east of the stadium and consisted of twenty-three structures at that time. The units
were placed in a circle so that the front façade faced a round common area in which
mothers and children often socialized. The circle also allowed for close monitoring of
those who entered and left the village. Flavet II was located south of P.K. Young
Laboratory School to the east of southwest Ninth Street. Composed of twenty two-story
structures, Flavet II had a grid layout instead of the circular plan of Flavet I. Rather than
common areas to the front of the residence, Flavet II common areas were in the rear of
the structures.
Flavet III was the largest of the villages with fifty-four two-story structures located southwest of the stadium. Like the residents of Flavet II, Flavet III residents enjoyed
common space to the back of the structures, forming a typical block plan. Unlike the residents of Flavet I, Flavet III residents were not able to directly access the common area
from their unit due to the fact that there was no back door. Residents had to walk around
the side of the building to get to the common area.
In total, there were approximately one hundred thirty-one temporary structures on
the campus by the summer of 1947 and thirty-five permanent structures, including
laboratories and facilities buildings [36]. The vast numbers of temporary structures were
evidence of the rapid growth of the university and its acute need for construction of
permanent structures.
41
Figure 6.3 University of Florida Campus Map, Summer 1950 [37]
By 1950, permanent building construction on campus resumed, more than a decade
after Fletcher Hall was completed. The first permanent women’s residence halls,
Mallory/Yulee/Reid Halls, were located in the southeast corner of campus, west of P.K.
Young and southwest Ninth Street [37]. The 1950 University of Florida yearbook, The
Seminole commented on the distant location of the halls by calling them, “12 acres in the
cow pasture” [37]. The new men’s residence halls, Tolbert, Riker, Weaver, and North
Halls, were located at the extreme west side of campus, southwest of the stadium. Both the men and women’s residence halls replaced some of the temporary structures used for housing in 1947, reducing the total number of temporary structures on campus.
42
Flavets
Figure 6.4 Family Living in Flavet I [38]
43
Figure 6.5 Flavet I, south of the stadium [36]
Figure 6.6 Single Story Unit Construction [38]
44
Figure 6.7 Two Story Unit Construction [38]
In the fall of 1945, university officials were able to benefit from the surplus of government housing units that had been built across Florida for the war effort [39].
President Tigert, along with his Assistant Business Manager George F. Baughman, searched across the southeast for existing buildings that could meet the university’s new housing needs. In Panama City, Florida they found a shipyard workers’ housing project built to support the wartime naval needs. For the price of $1, the University of Florida purchased 26 units that would provide about 100 apartments for incoming veterans [39].
University of Florida Alumnus Charles H. Overman, as director of the Florida
Improvements Commission, provided the $220,000 necessary to move the structures from Panama City to Gainesville [5]. As part of this group effort to provide housing, the state road department built the necessary roads for the complex and Gainesville Gas
Company provided the gas mains to the facility [39].
Flavet Village I was dedicated on February 11, 1946 with speeches by E. Meade
Wilson of the Florida American Legion, University President John J. Tigert, and
Secretary of State Robert A. Gray [40]. The village consisted of a collection of 26 worn
45
buildings with few amenities and dirt roads. Wilson referred to the village as, “A
Veteran’s City”, but at this point it was nothing more than a collection of old barracks
quite a distance away from campus.
The construction of Flavet village followed national housing expediter Wyatt’s
recommendations for veterans’ housing at this time. Housing expediter Wyatt made four
suggestions in providing housing for the veterans. Wyatt stated that the homes should be very basic in an effort to conserve materials and that the homes should be standardized to
aid in speed of construction. Wyatt also recommended that restrictive and confusing
building codes should be lifted nationwide. Finally, Wyatt insisted the communities should be large scale and built on inexpensive land.
The Flavet buildings were basic in design, conserved materials through reuse, and were located on inexpensive land. The first Flavet was placed in a wooded area that had not been previously developed, just as many of the suburbs were built on previously undeveloped land. The isolation of the village from the main campus was an inexpensive solution for the university, and in another effort to save money, the road in Flavet I was not paved. The Flavet units were dismantled, loaded on a truck and delivered to the campus to be reassembled into the housing units. This method created the standardization of construction that Wyatt recommended. The university had created, in microcosm, the same type of housing community that Wyatt had recommended for the nation at that time.
Veterans’ Issues
The influx of veterans as students to the university had greater implications than just a housing shortage. The veterans, as students, changed the social fabric of the university, just as veterans changed the social fabric of the nation as a whole. These
46
veterans were not motivated by the same factors as their single, civilian counterparts.
These students had both the academic commitments of typical students plus the financial
and social obligations to their family.
According to the Flavet interviews, many of the veterans were motivated by time.
After serving overseas for years, the veterans were ready to get on with their lives [41].
Joe Busby described that his service, although important, was an interruption in his life.
There was a sense of urgency in completing their education as soon as possible, so they could get a job and take care of their families. The sense of urgency, along with family responsibilities, resulted in a highly motivated caliber of student.
The strong motivations and hardships of war experience prepared the veterans and
their families for some less than ideal living situations. Jane Emerson commented that her previous life experience of hard times, including living through the Depression and the war, gave her the life skills she needed to deal with living under the tight budget of university life [42]. There seems to be a sense of gratitude toward both the government for recognizing their service and the University of Florida for providing an inexpensive place for them to stay. This may explain why the interviewees reported that there were no disputes between neighbors. One of the 1946 residents commented that you were just so grateful to have a reasonable place to live that you were very careful not to do anything to cause a problem [42]. A 1946 article in the St. Petersburg Times reflected this mentality in an article entitled, “Veterans At U. of F. Are Broke But Happy,” [43].
The article discussed the negative issues within the veterans’ housing area, such as overcrowding, shortages, and delayed government payments. Although the conditions of
47
Flavet village might seem harsh today, the residents of that time were happy to have
anywhere to stay.
The hardships of living in Flavet were also made easier by that fact that there were
few housing alternatives. The housing situation outside the university was just as
desperate as that on campus. For instance, in 1946 the number of families living in chicken coops was so high that the FHA actually offered modernization loans to those families [22]. Under those conditions, it is understandable that the residents of Flavet were not only content, but also thankful for their modest accommodations.
Flavet as a City
Figure 6.8 Flavet III Fire Department [38]
48
Figure 6.9 Flavet III Community Garden [38]
Perhaps in response to some of the struggles of early Flavet I residents, the residents of Flavet II drafted a constitution and established a Board of Commissioners sometime before August of 1947 [44]. This governing body established an elected mayor and five elected commissioners, each representing a different ward within Flavet II. This document also established taxes in the amount of 25 cents per month per living unit in order to provide funding for, “improvements and recreation for the residents of the
Village,” [44]. Apparently Flavet III later adopted a similar constitution and the minutes for many of the bi-weekly Flavet III Board of Commissioners meetings can be found in the university archives.
These minutes reveal a more detailed account of the issues concerning the citizens of the Flavets. The issues included the resolution of childcare, traffic problems, sanitation issues, lack of laundry facilities, and the need for recreational activities for both adults and families. Commissioners responded by building a laundry house with coin-operated machines and by establishing speed limit signs. For childcare, an issue that arose since many mothers needed to work, a full-time day nursery was established. The nursery also accepted children on a half-day basis for mothers who only worked part-time
[45]. For recreation, the board used funds donated by the American Legion to build a
49 playground for children with two separate areas for younger and older children [46]. For adult recreation, the nursery was available at night for “big weekends” [45].
Figure 6.10 The Three Press [38]
Figure 6.11 Flavet III Playground [38]
As the Flavet villages grew in size, the issues discussed at the meetings reflected that the Flavets were becoming more of a small town than a university residence area.
By 1948, the Board of Commissioners was discussing the need for a fire department,
50
educational opportunities for children, affordable heating, need for a co-op garden, crime
issues such as residents trespassing on the Agricultural Experiment Station, and creating
a Flavet publicity board [47]. The commission also established a construction board for
projects such as building an area that could provide space for showing movies and
holding church services [47]. Residents living in Flavet II were made aware of village
issues and Board of Commissioners meetings via The Three Press, the village’s
newsletter [48]. The news paper covered hot topics in the village, such as Board of
Commissioners elections, speeding, contributions to the village fund, and resident
editorials [48].
At this time, the village also reflected some of the racial issues that surfaced in
larger towns of that era. For example, in the spring of 1948 the board discussed whether
to allow colored maids to wash clothes for their employer in the village laundry [47].
The board decided to issue a general ballot to decide the controversial issue.
Unfortunately, no records exist as to the outcome of this vote or even if the vote actually took place. The idea, however, that the commission had the authority to decide such an issue proved that the board had extraordinary control over their own village.
The board also exercised its power in reference to traffic issues. On the March 4,
1948 meeting, there was a discussion of forming, “a semi-judicial body for the purpose of
enforcing village rules” [49]. At some point after this date, there was a traffic accident
involving a tricycle and another resident, presumably driving a car. The individuals
involved appeared before the committee and a motion was passed to appeal to the
Director of Residences for a firm policy regarding the punishments for violation of Flavet
By-Laws. During the April 29, 1948 meeting, the board issued a recommendation to the
51
housing office that any dispute that could not be resolved through an appeal to the board
would then be passed on to the housing office for further action” [50]. This incident
revealed the board’s power to act as both a legislative and judicial body for the village.
In fact, the villages confronted the same issues and concerns as the suburbs that
were being created across the nation. Childcare, traffic problems, sanitation issues, and
the need for recreational activities for both adults and families were issues addressed by
suburban developers nationwide. In his Levittown development, Bill Levitt provided the roads and some recreation such as neighborhood swimming pools, but the Levittown residents determined neighborhood policies. [51]. Although Flavet village was temporary, the Flavet residents created a sense of community not unlike their Levittown contemporaries.
Social Differences in Flavet
Although all the couples moved in within just five years of each other, there are some significant social differences in the residents who lived in Flavet I in 1946 and the residents who lived in Flavet III in 1951. The communities differed in life experience, women’s roles in the family, and community design. The life experience of the 1946 group seemed to be deeply tied to World War II. For instance, Bill Emerson and Joe
Busby from the 1946 group both give detailed accounts of their military experiences in the war [52, 53]. The husbands from the 1951 group commented less on their war experiences and more on their memories of Flavet life.
Another significant difference was the role of women in the family. Each of the
1946 residents already had at least one child when they moved into Flavet; therefore, the women did not work outside the home. By 1951, there was enough space for couples without children to live in the community and many of these wives did work outside the
52 home. The source of income may have made their experiences less financially challenging than the 1946 group, while the latter may have been enabled by the war experience to deal with difficult times. The result was that each group struggled financially, whether the wife worked or not. Flavet wives going to work also impacted the social nature of the village. Both Elta Busby and Jane Emerson from the 1946 group commented on caring for their small children alongside the other mothers in the village
[42, 54]. The residents who lived in Flavet after 1950 did not report caring for children with their neighbors. In fact, many of the post 1950 residents did not have children, while the original Flavet I residents reported that every couple in the village had at least one child. The post 1950 women were more likely be working and even attending the university alongside their husbands. Although the number of residents interviewed was not large enough to make a final conclusion, the interviewee comments indicated that the role of married women on the University of Florida campus changed significantly between 1945 and 1950.
53
Design Differences in Flavet
Figure 6.12 Campus Map in 1947, Flavet Villages highlighted [36]
There was also a distinct difference in community design that impacted the lives of
the residents. The 1946 Flavet I consisted of several one-story rectangular buildings,
each of which housed three apartment units, arranged in a large circle just southwest of campus. The later Flavet III, on the other hand, consisted of larger, two-story units that housed at least six apartments, aligned with streets rather than in a cul-de-sac formation.
The circular design of Flavet I allowed for each unit to face all the other units in the circle, allowing residents to know whenever someone entered or left the village. In
addition, both Elta Busby and Jane Emerson remarked that they appreciated the large picture window in their Flavet I apartments [42, 54]. This window framed a view of all
the other units in the village, their window into the community. Flavet III, on the other
hand had much smaller windows, which did not necessarily face the other apartments.
The larger scale of Flavet III and the design of the units resulted in a less close knit
54
community than in Flavet I. In Flavet III residents could not have known what went on
with all their neighbors.
The creation of the village was an innovative solution for the University of Florida.
The motivation for providing the housing was not solely to give the students a place to
stay, but also repay the servicemen for their sacrifices during the war. At the same time,
they created a whole new university community that exists in the form of family housing
on campus today.
Comparison of Collegetown and Flavets.
There are several strong similarities between University of Florida’s Flavet Village and Collegetown. Obviously, both housed veterans and their families after World War II
[10]. Each housing facility was closely linked to an educational facility and housed
veterans who were attending school with help from the GI Bill. Both Flavets and
Collegetown can be viewed as three smaller villages that made up the whole residence
entity. The structures in each facility were similar, all a collection of barrack type
structures. Both residence facilities were temporary in nature, with the temporary barrack structures and a transient student population that varied from year to year.
Yet there are some notable differences between Flavets and Collegetown. Florida’s
Flavets housed only veterans attending the University of Florida, while Collegetown was composed of student families and non-student families. Florida’s Flavets were located adjacent to the UF campus, although it was a long walk. Collegetown residents, on the other hand, were twenty miles from Manhattan where Collegetown students attended a variety of New York City colleges and universities [10]. Collegetown students had to either take a bus or train into the city for classes, shopping and recreation. In
Collegetown, student veteran families, non- student veteran families, and families of First
55
Army Officers all lived together on the Collegtown campus [10]. Flavet was only available to veterans attending the University of Florida and their families until 1953
[55]. From this information, one can gather that the Flavets were strictly a student- housing complex for veterans, while Collegetown also accommodated veterans who were not attending a university.
Most important to note is that the residents of Collegetown at one time had no political incorporation [10]. Collegetown residents did, however, join forces to support their right to vote in a 1947 local election and the following presidential election of 1948
[10]. The State Supreme Court of New York did give the Collegetown residents the right to vote, overruling the judgment made by New York State Attorney General Nathaniel L.
Goldstein that the Collegetown residents were simply transient “dormitory” students [10].
The residents of Collegetown were obviously active in their community, involved and unified enough to fight for their right to vote in local elections. This is not unlike the unity in Flavets that resulted in a form of self-governance through their constitution and local elections. The residents of Collegetown also established a Resident’s Association, which may have served a similar purpose to the city council of Flavet, although it appeared that the Collegetown Residents Association may have been more limited in power [10].
Another benefit of the community unity shared by Flavets and Collegetown was that each had their own co-op grocery store. There were independent food markets in close proximity to each residence facility, yet the students unified to provide cheaper food options for their community [10]. Also, both Collegetown and Flavets had a community nursery to provide childcare for families [10]. The social similarities
56 between Flavet and Collegetown indicate larger trends that were occurring at a national level in the new suburbs.
Flavet and Suburbia
Figure 6.13 Flavet Interior with Picture Window on Right [38]
Figure 6.14 Flavet Kitchen [38]
Across the nation, veterans were living on limited incomes, looking forward to their civilian lives. Both suburban and Flavet residents struggled with the issues of daily living, such as traffic and childrearing. Changes in women’s roles were also emerging in
57
both environments. However, the strongest similarity between the two environments was
the striking homogeneity of its residents. The Flavets and Levittown were all comprised
mainly of young, white veterans and their families. For example in Levittown, African
Americans were not welcome to purchase homes, [51]. Bill Levitt, although sympathetic
to African Americans, claimed that 95% of his white clients would move if he sold a
home to an African American family, [51]. These social similarities demonstrate that
the Flavets are representative of national social trends at that time.
Flavet, Levittown, and other suburbs, were communities built outside the
established city area. For the Flavets, the established city was the campus core of
permanent buildings. In contrast, men in the suburbs would take a train into the city to
work, while men in Flavet took a fifteen-minute walk to campus for class.
Both the Flavets and the suburbs offered veterans affordable, mass-produced
housing. The “standardization” of homes recommended by housing expediter Wyatt, was realized through the mass produced Levittown homes and was essential for the
financial success of Levittown [51]. The Flavet units, designed by the military, were
also mass-produced for the same economic reason. The result was conformity in design
of both living environments.
Aside from conformity and mass production, there were other design similarities
between the design of the Flavets and Levittown. The design of the Levittown homes
included a large picture window that overlooked the backyard where their children
played. According to the residents of Flavet I, the picture window in their homes
influenced their lives as well, providing a way for them to look after their children
playing outside, while doing chores inside the house. The picture window, a design
58 element associated with international modern designs, was a symbol of modern amenities in both Flavet I and Levittown homes – in fact, in post-war suburbs across the nation.
Although the Flavets were not prefabricated, as the Lustron home, both the Lustron and the Flavets foreshadowed conservation and sustainability issues that were confronted in the following decades. Both Flavet and Lustron were conscious efforts to conserve materials and energy. Flavet conserved materials through the reuse of existing structures, while Lustron conserved through the use of innovative streamlined designs. Both provided a flexible efficient means of providing housing to veterans.
The Colonial Revival Influence
Figure 6.15 Flavet I Unit [38]
59
Figure 6.16 Flavet II Unit [38]
Figure 6.17 Typical Flavet III Housing Unit [38]
Since the Flavet Villages were composed of reused military barracks, they were quite simple in design, devoid of much detail. Even though the structures were simple in construction and design, the proportions, fenestration, and roof of the structures in Flavet
60
III were designed with some influence from traditional residential homes in the United
States at that time. The windows of these structures were small, double hung operable windows that pierced the building envelope in a regular pattern. A small, raised front porch with gabled roof denoted the entry. Many examples of traditional features, colonial revival forms in particular, may be found in military housing units similar to
Flavet III across the nation.
The use of traditional design elements to convey a sense of home was widely used in post-war construction. Even though the tenets of modernism called for a complete architectural break from past architectural design language and thinking, Americans continued to associate traditional forms with security and the sense of home. The colonial revival experienced widespread popularity in residential construction during this time, despite the increase of modernist thinking.
The President’s House
Figure 6.18 President’s House
61
Figure 6.19 President’s Home- Entry
The President’s Home is a noteworthy case-in-point that the University of Florida,
like the nation as a whole, embraced the colonial image. Surprisingly, the early residents of the Flavet Village unknowingly provided the funds to build the President’s House.
Through some miscalculation, the residents of the villages were overcharged for their
accommodations, creating a $125,000 surplus 1951 [56]. By the time the error was
discovered, the residents who had been overcharged no longer lived in Flavet and it was
not possible to refund their money. The Board of Control dictated that this surplus would
be used to build the President’s Home, which would provide accommodations for both
62
the president and distinguished guests and serve as an activity center for university
events. Thus the new home was named the Official Residence and Reception Center.
The initial sketches for the design of the building were done by Jefferson Hamilton,
consulting architect to the Board of Control [56]. Hamilton created the design under the
direction of a an advisory committee composed of the president of the Alumni
Association, the wife of the chairman of the Board of Control, the state senator of the
district, and “several responsible members of the faculty and faculty wives,” [57].
According to Edith Patti Pitts, administrative assistant to the president of the university in
1954, “both modernist and traditionalists were on the committee,” [57]. Pitts describes a disagreement between the two groups as to what design interpretation would be most suitable for the home. Pitts stated that the “modernists” favored the functional architecture emerging along Florida’s costal areas, possibly referring to the Sarasota
School of architecture. It was ultimately determined by President J. Hillis Miller that, “a modernistic structure, however attractive, would not fit into the general pattern” of the university campus, so a compromise was made [57]. The President’s home would be built in a “semi-traditional” manner, but would be “functional” and include porches and terraces to embrace the lush surroundings. In addition, all the latest “gadgets featured in modern Florida homes” would be incorporated in the design [57].
The President’s home was completed in 1953 at 2151 West University Avenue, west of the main part of campus. The home is constructed of red Florida brick, similar to the brick found on the collegiate gothic structures on the campus. The President’s Home, however, relies on classical design elements rather than the collegiate gothic tradition of the University of Florida. The classically inspired colonial elements of the home were
63
unusual for the university as a whole at that time, although the use of classical elements
in housing had been implemented by Fulton to achieve a more welcoming entry to the
residence halls. The persistence of committee members to incorporate this concept in the
President’s Home reflects a national attitude about the perception of a welcoming home.
Pitts stated that the exterior design was, “conceived along the lines of the gracious
homes found in the South during the early nineteenth century and often referred to as
Colonial,” [57]. Pitts also argues that the colonial structure is really an expression of
Greek Revival designs, noting that the cross axis floor plan was modeled after that of a
Greek temple [57]. In addition, the entry was a work of both colonial and classic design.
The two story gabled portico supported by columns reflected the classic tradition of
American colonialism as well. Pitts summarized the public opinion of the design by
saying, “in its completed form the building successfully maintained the traditional
friendly and gracious appearance which characterizes the so-called ‘Colonial’ home,”
[57]. According to Pitts’s statement, the colonial elements of the President’s Home
created a design that would seem “friendly and gracious” to visitors of the home.
The public perception that traditional colonial design conveyed a sense of
friendliness explains the reluctance of Americans to completely abandon colonial design
elements in their new homes. Apparently, if a building needed to seem friendly and
welcoming at that time, colonial elements were an absolute necessity. The design of
suburban homes during that era also supported this idea. The suburban homes included
modern innovations such as picture windows low sloping roofs, yet non- functioning,
colonial shutters were applied to the exterior of most post-war homes. Americans at that
time were simply not able to completely depart from the image that colonial design
64 elements conveyed friendliness. In the same manner, the military used colonial elements to make stark, utilitarian barracks seem like home. The structures of Flavet III are examples of the practice of applying colonial elements to buildings for the sole purpose of conveying the idea that they were homes. During that era, colonial designs symbolized the home to the American public.
The Modern Residence Halls
The use of classical design elements as a transition for campus housing design was not limited to the temporary Flavets or the monumental President’s Home. Board of
Control Architect Guy Fulton went to great lengths to develop a unique design solution that unified the historic campus and modern concepts through transitional classical elements [6]. For the residence halls, Fulton developed a very particular design language that carried through all the halls he designed on the University of Florida campus. As a group, the buildings maintained a uniformity of design elements; all possessing certain character defining features that unify them. The following will identify and show examples of those features.
65
Location on Campus: Reflection of Site and Climate
Figure 6.20 Campus Map Summer 1950 Highlighting Fulton Residence Hall [37]
Figure 6.21 Tolbert/Riker/Weaver/North [37]
66
Figure 6.22 Mallory/Yulee/Reid [37]
As with the temporary housing provided by Flavets I, II, and III, the new
permanent housing would be located to the south of the early campus. This choice of site
reflected the tendency to expand outward to provide housing, as seen nationally in the rise of suburban housing developments. As with Flavet III, the angular position of the buildings on the site reflected considerations other than the traditional grid of the campus.
Each of the residence halls designed by Fulton was essentially a simple rectangle.
However, Fulton grouped the buildings together, linking them at the ends with stairwells and covered walkways. These passages allowed residents to move freely from one building to another without having to go down to the ground floor, a concept that was not applied in earlier gothic campus residence halls. Fulton did continue the university design tradition of creating courtyards between the residence halls. Instead of linking the halls in a straight line, Fulton made a Y shape for Mallory/Yulee/Reid so that the three buildings share the common space at the top (north) of the Y. The men’s dormitories also created courtyards through their staggered configuration. The men’s residence halls are connected by an arced pathway, from which the individual buildings projected. The courtyards are defined by the long elevations of each building and the pathway that
67
connects them. The angular placement reflects the form of the site and consideration of sun and breezes. In each case, at least one side of the courtyard perimeter is left open, embracing
the campus.
The creation of courtyards was not limited to Fulton’s residence halls on campus.
In fact, all permanent resident halls on campus since the Buckman and Thomas Halls
created courtyards in which students could socialize. Fulton continued this practice, but
in a larger scale. The new dormitory courtyards were much larger than the pre-World
War II courtyards, due to the fact that the new residence halls were larger than the pre-
World War II residence halls. The new courtyards served the same purpose of providing
social spaces in which students could interact, but in the new resident halls this idea was
much more crucial to the success of the buildings. At a time when university enrollment
was increasing at a rapid pace, the social courtyards became critical in creating a sense of
community. In Aalto’s Baker House, the critical social space was the dining hall, but for
the more temperate climate of University of Florida, that space was the courtyard.
Figure 6.23 North Hall Concrete Overhangs
68
Figure 6.24 Yulee Hall Covered Walkway
Figure 6.25 Tolbert Concrete Spiral Stair
Figure 6.26 Mallory/Yulee/Reid Railing
Like the collegiate gothic buildings that came before them, these residence halls have a detail language expressed in concrete. However, Fulton’s halls embodied a
69
restrained and highly simplified approach to detail in keeping with the modernist way of
thinking. All of these buildings made use of modern concrete overhangs that are both a practical and aesthetic device. Functionally, the overhangs protect the building from the
intense Florida sun. From an aesthetic standpoint, the overhangs emphasize a modern horizontality.
All of these residence halls have covered porches and walkways of some kind.
These generally consist of a concrete slab overhang supported by simple cast concrete columns. Where railings were needed, steel railing was installed, the most ornate of which can be found in Mallory, Yulee, Reid, and Tolbert Halls. Tolbert hall also has an unusual concrete spiral stair with steel handrail. Fulton’s choice of using concrete covered walkways between buildings shaded residents from the sun, but also allowed open views of the courtyards without restricting cooling crosswinds.
Interpretation of Traditional Features
A B C
Figure 6.27 Fulton Residence Hall Entryways (A) Weaver Hall (B)Yulee Hall (C)Reid Hall
70
A B
Figure 6.28 Entry Details (A) North Hall (B) Riker Hall Entry
Simplified wood pilasters with a smooth lintel on which the building name is
marked, created a portico at each entrance. The sides of the portico were glazed, as well
as the door itself. The portico extended from a glass storefront composed of rectangular
lights (panes). All wood and mullions were painted a dull blue. The entire entry
sequence, including the portico was suppressed into the building and was generally
accented by a concrete surround. In the most cases, the concrete detail extended to the
floors above the entrance as well, creating a vertical rectangle around the entry point.
The concrete surround also encircled a series of porches on floors above the entry. The porches were open in Mallory, Yule, and Reid, and glazed in Weaver, North and Riker and Tolbert. The classical detail of the entry to each residence halls was not merely a design whim by Fulton. The language signifies the security of a home environment, reflective of the popularity of colonial revival in post-war housing across the nation.
71
Fulton limited the use of these details to the entry, perhaps in an effort to supply only the
minimal amount of traditional references to the mostly modern structures.
Roof Design and Compatibility
Figure 6.29 Mallory Hall Hip Roof
In the dormitory roof form and materials, Fulton made a conscious connection to
the historic center of the University of Florida campus. The hipped roof had been used
on significant buildings of the quadrangle Plaza of the Americas – 1910 Science Hall
(Keene-Flint), 1912 College of Agriculture (Griffin-Floyd), 1913 Peabody College for
Teachers, and 1913 Language Hall (Anderson), and 1927 Chemistry and Pharmacy
(Leigh Hall). The hipped roof was also a vernacular form, appropriate to the region.
While this form was found on some of Wright’s Prairie School buildings, the flat roof is
more commonly associated with the modern movement.
Ludowici clay tiles were specified for the first two buildings of the campus,
Buckman and Thomas Halls, and remained the single campus roofing material. Fulton
specified that the clay tiles for the new dormitories be composed of a precise mix of colors, similar to those found on the collegiate gothic structures [6]. As in his choice of clay tile, Fulton specified red brick as a statement of harmony with the historic campus.
72
Although Fulton used these features to create continuity, he worked with a concept that was modern as well as compatible.
Windows
A B Figure 6.30 Casement Windows of Residence Halls (A) North Hall (B)Yulee Hall
Figure 6.31 Mallory Hall
73
Figure 6.32 Stairwell Between Riker Hall and North Hall
74
Figure 6.33 Stairwell Between Mallory/Yulee/Reid
Fulton’s original specifications called for single pane, steel casement windows for
all of these buildings. The fenestration pattern is regular, composed of square window
units made of square lights (panes). All of the long sides of the buildings are perforated
with windows. The large number and regular fenestration pattern of the windows make them a particularly important part of the design language. The large numbers of windows
allow for natural light to penetrate the building, as well as the ventilation essential in
Florida prior to the advent of air-conditioning. The strict uniformity of fenestration is in
keeping with the standardization and streamline qualities of modern design.
In an effort to make use of new technology in materials and design for maximum
natural light penetration, glass block was incorporated into the design of all Fulton
residence halls. Fulton articulated stairwells at the ends and in between the sets of dorms
75 with glass block. The block accentuated the vertical shaft at the endpoints of the buildings and created a rhythm between vertical and horizontal elements. Fulton specified an unusual kind of glass block in which the glass block is curved in one direction. The result is a waved or ridged surface after installation. New innovations in glass design, such as the curved glass block, were also elements of modern design. The large number and design of the windows suggest Fulton’s strategy of providing generous amounts of natural light. Fulton was well aware of the criticism that gothic buildings have too little natural light and, as a result, his residence halls were designed to provide ample natural light for its residents.
Fulton’s State of the Art Designs
In an effort to provide the best and most efficient in housing designs, the Board of
Control instructed Assistant Business Manager George Baughman to tour the nation’s leading schools where the construction of women’s residence halls had been completed in
1947 [6]. Baughman returned with a list of recommendations for the construction of
Mallory/Yulee/Reid. Thee recommendations represented a summary of what was state of the art in women’s residence hall design at the time, such as the grouping of housing units to provide amenities efficiently. Fulton followed this recommendation through his
Y shape design of Mallory/Yulee/Reid, with centrally located amenities such as a soda fountain and grill. Other amenities included sewing rooms, shampoo rooms, and kitchenettes. Mallory/Yulee/Reid also provided plenty of recreational space within the structure and surrounding courtyards. The importance of on-site recreational activities may have been the result of two factors. The national trend in residence hall design was to provide ample social and study spaces within the residence hall, like the social spaces in Aalto’s Baker House. The University of Florida, however, had an additional motive
76 for providing on-site recreation for the women living in Mallory/Yulee/Reid. In an effort to better “monitor and control fraternization”, the all female resident population of
Mallory/Yulee/Reid was isolated form the men’s side of campus, both in location and in social activities [9]. This, however, did not prevent the perpetration of a panty raid that received national publicity. By providing plenty of recreational activities within
Mallory/Yulee/Reid, it was assumed to be less likely that females might venture to the male side of campus [9]. Fulton’s designs reflected issues that universities were facing across the nation. The introduction of women on campus was a nationwide phenomenon that sparked widespread residence hall design changes both at the University of Florida and other universities nationwide.
Summary
National and campus social issues, such as the changing role of women and the influx of veterans in society, had architectural implications in both the national and campus realms. The Flavet structures and the President’s Home reflected such changes, as well as the national perception of traditional home designs. The residence halls represented the most progressive of the architectural endeavors of architect Guy Fulton at the University of Florida. The residence halls evoke international modern hallmarks, such as strong horizontal elements, attention to environmental setting, and a typical international modern fenestration. Yet, Fulton successfully integrated the halls into the historic campus and even reflected the colonial trends of residential housing of that time.
Each of these structures expressed a significant facet of the architectural climate of housing in post-World War II America.
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS
The decade following the close of the Second World War was a time of significant
change worldwide. Both Europe and the United States underwent tremendous social
changes in the transition from wartime to peacetime. The booming post-war built
environment reflected changes in world-views, government programs, and women’s roles
in society.
World War II also sparked the creation of the far-reaching government program
known as the GI Bill. The GI Bill had long lasting effects on both residential housing and education in the United States, making both more achievable for more Americans.
The nationwide housing and building materials shortage gave rise to new suburbs. These
suburban homes incorporated the use of economical new materials and modern features,
yet sought the visual comfort of the traditional colonial home. The new neighborhoods
housed a homogeneous population in homogeneous homes, isolated from the woes of city
living.
At the same time, the flood of returning veterans funded by the GI Bill influenced
the University of Florida to create a suburbia of its own. Like the suburbia cropping up
outside of every major city nationwide, Flavet village was created on the outskirts of the
established core of the campus. The use of the pre-built structures resulted from similar
economic motivations that influenced both the Levittown and the Lustron home. Just like
suburban homes of that time, the Flavets reflected both traditional details and
international modern influences. As far as interior design is concerned, the Flavets
77 78 lacked some of the technological advances of the Lustron homes, but both the Lustron and Flavet homes made use of open floor plans with flexible family and dining spaces.
Kitchens and bathrooms were compact and designed for efficiency of space. The Lustron homes and the Flavets both incorporated the design feature of a large picture window, made possible by advances in glass production. All Flavet villages, in some way, reflected the trend toward designing backyards in which children could play. Like
Levittown and Collegetown, the Flavet Villages housed a homogeneous community in a benign setting.
As a result of the war, architects such as Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe, migrated to the United States and expressed the international world-view through the design language of their structures. Their international design language was a symbol of worldwide technological progress and hope for the future.
Recognizing the importance of the emerging international culture, Guy Fulton and the Board of Control sought to reflect the international influence through the post war residence hall building projects. The use of modern materials, simplified detail, and attention to environmental setting echoed national and international values. Both
Mallory/Yulee/Reid and the other residence halls designed by Fulton remained in harmony with the context of the campus and, at the same time, reflected the modern ideals that defined that era nation wide.
Yet, these residence halls were also representative of a nationwide trend in residential housing. Just as the homes of suburbia incorporated classical elements to convey a traditional sense of home, the new residence halls reflected those values in the simplified classical design elements at the entries. Students walking into their new
79
college residence halls were welcomed with familiar elements. Like the suburban home,
the new residence halls both symbolized American progress and technological advances, but also echoed the comforts of the past.
Recommendations
World War II caused great advances in the standardization and efficiency of construction. At the close of the war, building materials were scarce, and the need for housing was great. The result was an intense dedication to efficiency of construction and practicality in design.. Attention to environmental setting, the reuse of building materials, and efficiency in design and construction that were common in post-war construction suggest a common theme with sustainable design priorities of the early 21st century. Further study into the similarities between post war construction and sustainable construction could reveal insights into the correlations and successful and unsuccessful attempts of the past.
Sustainability and sensitivity to climate are hallmarks of the early post-war era.
Ongoing study is needed to identify characteristics of the significant buildings of this period. Through such analysis and dissemination of information, the gap in understanding the buildings of this era may be lessened.
Specific to the University of Florida campus, further study should be concentrated on significant buildings of the post-war era and their preservation. Before reaching the benchmark of 50 years, these buildings had not been recognized for their historic significance and their relative youth contributed to their deterioration.
This study has recognized the need to preserve the dormitories of the early post-war era. Further study is needed to identify proper rehabilitation methods that will preserve character, improve the efficiency and keep maintenance costs low. Windows are a
80
particular problem because the steel casements that perforate the buildings are inefficient.
Where replacement is necessary, new windows should not be dramatically different from the design of the original casement windows, which were a hallmark of this architectural period. The new windows alongside the old windows can disrupt the rhythm established by Fulton’s fenestration pattern.
The residence halls also suffer from mold and growth on the exterior surfaces of the building, such as the tile roof and the concrete window overhangs. The white concrete overhangs are also covered in debris, adding to the look of neglect. Appropriate cleaning
methods should be applied to these elements in order to sustain the original clean line
design of Fulton. When these residence halls opened they were viewed as state of the art
facilities, a symbol of progress and hope for the future. In their current state, they stand
as symbols of neglect and inefficiency. Efforts need to be made now to bring back
Fulton’s original vision for these buildings and to recognize their importance as symbols
of design transition and harmony with the campus.
In conclusion, this study has analyzed significant developments in campus housing
at the University of Florida during the post-World War II period from 1945 to 1956. This
was a period of significance to the university; its enormous growth and significant social
change were reflected in the housing for the new university population. In its temporary
housing and in its transitional new architecture, the university campus expressed in
microcosm a period of national and global new directions after World War II.
APPENDIX A MASTER SITE FILE FORM FOR MALLORY/YULEE/REID HALLS
82 83
84
85
APPENDIX B MASTER SITE FILE FORM FOR MEN’S RESIDENCE HALLS
87 88
89
90
APPENDIX C FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS- FEMALE
Intro/Background
Where are you from?
Describe how your life changed after the onset of World War II.
What was your daily life like during the war?
When were you married?
How did your husband’s service impact your life?
When did he return?
Were you involved in the decision for your husband to go to school?
What were the factors that influenced your move to Gainesville?
The University
A university cheerleader of this era concluded, “They [the veterans] have no school spirit. All these people are interested in is getting an education,” (Cawthon,
Stanmore. St. Petersburg Times, November 13, 1946). Why was an education so important to you?
What did your husband study at UF?
What did you expect that university life would be like?
Did you know how long it would take your husband to graduate?
Did you have any concerns about coming to UF?
Did you take any classes at the university?
91 92
Can you describe a typical day for you? What time did you wake up? What were your daily responsibilities?
How did you handle the transition between military life and college life?
Was the transition to university life difficult?
Housing
Where did you live just before moving to Flavet?
How did you go about finding a place to live?
Which Flavet did you live in?
What were your expectations as far as housing goes?
Describe the interior and exterior of you apartment.
Number of bedrooms/baths- Furnishings (your own or came with the unit) Flooring- Ceiling-
Were all apartments the same on the interior?
What did the kitchen come equipped with?
Were there any optional amenities?
I have read over a copy of one of the lease agreements that states that electricity was provided in the rent, but that if you had certain appliances, such as an electric ice box, a washing machine, waffle iron, coffee percolator, or an electric fan, you would be charged an extra amount in your rent. Which, if any, of these did you have?
Did you have a telephone? Did most families have a telephone?
What did you do to make your apartment more livable?
Were there any issues with sound within the unit?
Did residents aid in the maintenance of these structures?
Were you allowed to have any pets?
93
Social
Describe the social life at Flavet Village?
Did you know anyone in the village before you moved in?
Did most residents have similar backgrounds?
How did residents celebrate holidays?
I have read in the Flavet archives that movies were shown at the Flavets. Do you recall this?
Were you close to your neighbors?
Do you keep up with any of your friends that you met in Flavet?
Were there any groups of people that tended to socialize together- such as couples with children vs. couples without children, or older couples?
Was there a church within the Flavets? What denomination?
What did you do for recreation while living in Flavet?
What clubs or groups were you active in?
What were the age ranges of resident in the village?
Was there much diversity of residents within the Flavets?
Were there any minorities living in the Flavets?
There was an incident noted in the Flavet Board of Commissioners meeting minutes about whether one of the residents’ maid would be able to use the laundry facilities for cleaning their employer’s clothes. Do you recall this incident? Did you or any of your friends at Flavet have a maid?
Were there any single veterans within the Flavets?
What happened when you or someone in you family got sick? Could you go to the infirmary?
What do you know about a volunteer fire department in Flavet III?
Was there a Flavet newsletter or a more extensive newspaper run through the Flavets?
94
Did you ever notice the UF radio station being broadcast from the Flavets?
Did you feel safe living in Flavet?
Was there any crime in the Flavets?
Was there a neighborhood watch?
Did you feel there was a sense of community within the Flavets? Why or why not?
Dean of Students R. C. Beatty was quoted as saying that there was a low divorce rate in the Flavets. Beatty’s explanation for this was that the veterans of this era have, “something in the way of character”. What was this character? What kept these families together? Circumstance? Ambition? Politics
What kinds of rules were in place for living in Flavet?
Were the rules generally adhered to?
What kind of disciplinary action was taken against those who broke the Flavet rules?
Where would someone lodge a complaint about another resident?
Did many residents own a vehicle?
Were there any traffic problems?
Were there any “unwritten rules” or codes that residents abided by?
I’ve read about the Mayor and commissioners of Flavet Village. Did the 3 villages all have separate mayors? What kind of impact and power did the mayor have? Who was allowed to vote? Could women serve?
What were the most controversial local issues among the residents of the Flavets?
Economic
How much of a concern was money to you when you lived in the Flavets?
95
How much did it cost to live in Flavet and how did most people afford it?
Can you give me an idea of what expenses made up your budget?
Did you work?
Did your spouse work?
Did many of the wives in Flavet work?
The ones that worked- where did they go to find employment?
(if had children) What did you do for childcare?
(if have children) What were concerns about raising children in Flavet?
Did you expect that your financial situation would change after graduation?
How did your experience living in Flavet influence you life?
Would you assess your experience living in Flavet as a positive experience?
What were the negative aspects of living there that we have not already covered?
Can you suggest other individuals that might be helpful to this research?
Is there anything else that I haven’t asked that you would like to talk about?
APPENDIX D FLAVET ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS-MALE
Intro/Background
Where are you from?
Discuss your military experience in World War II.
What division and theater did you serve in during the war?
Describe the changes in your life from before the war to during the war.
When and where were you released from the service?
How did your military experiences change your values and your outlook on life? Your work ethic? Your focus? Your commitment?
How did your life change after you were released from service?
Why did you choose to go to college? Did your parents go to college? Did future financial security influence your decision to go to school? Were there any other factors that influenced your decision?
Why did you choose to come to the University of Florida?
The University
A university cheerleader of this era concluded, “They [the veterans] have no school spirit. All these people are interested in is getting an education,” (Cawthon,
Stanmore. St. Petersburg Times, November 13, 1946). Why was an education so important to you?
Why were you more motivated than entering freshmen?
96 97
What did you study at UF?
What did you expect that university life would be like?
Did you know how long it would take to graduate?
Did you have any concerns about coming to UF?
Can you describe a typical school day for you? What time did you wake up? How many classes did you attend?
How did you handle the transition between military life and college life?
Was it difficult to make the change from giving and receiving orders to taking direction from a professor?
How did you balance your school responsibilities with your family responsibilities?
Housing
Where did you live just before moving to Flavet?
How did you go about finding a place to live?
Which Flavet did you live in?
What were your expectations as far as housing goes?
Describe the interior and exterior of you apartment. # of bedrooms/baths- Furnishings (your own or came with the unit) Flooring- Ceiling-
Were all apartments the same on the interior?
What did the kitchen come equipped with?
Were there any optional amenities?
I have read over a copy of one of the lease agreements that states that electricity was provided in the rent, but that if you had certain appliances, such as an electric ice box, a washing machine, waffle iron, coffee percolator, or an electric fan, you would be charged an extra amount in your rent. Which, if any, of these did you have?
Did you have a telephone?
98
Did most families have a telephone?
What did you do to make your apartment more livable?
Were there any issues with sound within the unit?
Did residents aid in the maintenance of these structures?
Were you allowed to have any pets?
Social
Describe the social life at Flavet Village?
Did you know anyone in the village before you moved in?
Did most residents have similar backgrounds?
How did residents celebrate holidays?
I have read in the Flavet archives that movies were shown at the Flavets. Do you recall this?
Were you close to your neighbors?
Do you keep up with any of your friends that you met in Flavet?
Were there any groups of people that tended to socialize together- such as couples with children vs. couples without children, or older couples?
Was there a church within the Flavets? What denomination?
What did you do for recreation while living in Flavet?
What were the age ranges of resident in the village?
Was there much diversity of residents within the Flavets?
Were there any minorities living in the Flavets?
There was an incident noted in the Flavet Board of Commissioners meeting minutes about whether one of the residents’ maid would be able to use the laundry facilities for cleaning their employer’s clothes. Do you recall this incident? Did you or any of your friends at Flavet have a maid?
99
Were there any single veterans within the Flavets?
What happened when you or someone in you family got sick? Could you go to the infirmary?
What do you know about a volunteer fire department in Flavet III?
Was there a Flavet newsletter or a more extensive newspaper run through the Flavets?
Did you ever notice the UF radio station being broadcast from the Flavets?
Did you feel safe living in Flavet?
Was there any crime in the Flavets?
Was there a neighborhood watch?
Did you feel there was a sense of community within the Flavets? Why or why not?
Dean of Students R. C. Beatty was quoted as saying that there was a low divorce rate in the Flavets. Beatty’s explanation for this was that the veterans of this era have, “something in the way of character”. What was this character? What kept these families together? Circumstance? Ambition?
Politics
What kinds of rules were in place for living in Flavet?
Were the rules generally adhered to?
What kind of disciplinary action was taken against those who broke the Flavet rules?
Where would someone lodge a complaint about another resident?
Did many residents own a vehicle?
Were there any traffic problems?
Were there any “unwritten rules” or codes that residents abided by?
I’ve read about the Mayor and commissioners of Flavet Village. Did the 3 villages all have separate mayors? What kind of impact and power did the mayor have? Who was allowed to vote?
100
Could women serve?
What were the most controversial local issues among the residents of the Flavets?
Economic
How much of a concern was money to you when you lived in the Flavets?
How much did it cost to live in Flavet and how did most people afford it?
Can you give me an idea of what expenses made up your budget?
Did you work?
Did your spouse work?
(if had children) What did you do for childcare?
Did you expect that your financial situation would change after graduation?
How did your experience living in Flavet influence you life?
Would you assess your experience living in Flavet as a positive experience?
What were the negative aspects of living there that we have not already covered?
Can you suggest other individuals that might be helpful to this research?
Is there anything else that I haven’t asked that you would like to talk about?
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Shiffer, Rebecca A., The Recent Past. Cultural Resources Management Bulletin, 1995. 18(8).
2. Roth, Leland M., American Architecture. 2001, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3. Musgrove, John, A History of Architecture. 1987, London: Butterworths.
4. Proctor, Samuel, Gator History. 1987, Gainesville, FL: South Star.
5. Tigert, John J., "Biennial Report of the President to the Board of Control", The University Record of the University of Florida. 1946, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL.
6. Catinna, Anne, Years of Transition: Architecture on the University of Florida Campus, 1944-1956, Master's Thesis in Architecture. 1993, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL.
7. Turner, Paul V., Campus: An American Planning Tradition. 1984, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. McCarthy, Kevin M., Guide to the University of Florida and Gainesville. 1997, Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.
9. Blansett, Sharon C., A History of University of Florida Residence Facilities. revised, 2nd ed. 2003, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Department of Housing and Residence Education.
10. Horn, Bernard., Collegetown, a Study of Transient Student Veteran Families In A Temporary Housing Community, Master's Thesis in Political Science. 1948, Columbia University: New York.
11. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, National Park Service, retrieved February 1, 2005 from http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/secstan1.htm, ParkNet.
12. A Checklist for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, National Park Service, retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/cheklist.htm, ParkNet.
13. Ritchie, Donald A., Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. 2003, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
101 102
14. Stowell, Kenneth K., "Demands of War Come First," Architectural Record. 1945.
15. Morris, Edwin Batemen. "What Next for Architecture," Journal of the American Institute of Architects, Vol. 4, No.1, July 1945.
16. Churchill, Henry. "What Shall We Do With Our Cities?" Journal of the American Institute of Architects, Vol. IV, No.2, August 1945.
17. Gelernter, M., A History of American Architecture: Buildings in Their Cultural and Technological Context. 1999, Hanover and London: University Press of New England.
18. Mason, Joseph B. History of Housing in the U.S. 1930-1980, Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1982.
19. Stowell, Kenneth K. "Houses, Faster and Cheaper," Architectural Record, Vol. 99, No. 2, February 1946.
20. Raymond, Antonin. "Housing, a Post-War Responsibility and Opportunity," Journal of the American Institute of Architects, Vol. 4, No. 6, December 1945.
21. Clark, Clifford E., The American Family Home, 1800-1960. 1986, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
22. Wright, Gwendolyn., Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. 1981, New York: Pantheon Books. 329.
23. Mars, Vernon D. "Look Homeward, Housing!" Architectural Record, Vol. 99, No. 4, April 1946.
24. "Robie House". Frank Lloyd Wright Preservation Trust retrieved February 5, 2005 from http://www.wrightplus.org/robiehouse/robiehouse.html
25. Mott, Steward H. "Trends in Post-War Housing," Journal of the American Institute of Architects, Vol. 4, No. 3, September 1945.
26. Nalkaya, Saim, The Personalization of a Housing Environment: A Study of Levittown, Pennsylvania. 1980: University Microfilms International.
27. Hauf, Harold D. "Prefabrication: The Acorn House," Architectural Record, Vol. 107, No. 5, May 1950.
28. Fetters, Thomas T. The Lustron Home: The History of a Postwar Prefabricated Housing Experiment, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2002.
29. Rannells, John. "Building in the Tropics," Architectural Record, Vol. 112, No. 2, August 1952.
103
30. Wright, Henry. "Oklahoma University Goes Modern," Architectural Forum, Vol. 83, No. 3, September 1945.
31. Stubbins, Hugh, Jr. "College Dormitories: What Do the Colleges Really Want?" Architectural Record, Vol. 99, No. 3, April 1946.
32. "Baker House" in Baker House Picture Book, Residential Computing Massachusetts Institute of Technology retrieved February 20, 2005 from http://web.mit.edu/baker/.
33. Rebuilding Baker House, in PLAN The Newsletter of the School of Architecture and Planning #51. 1999, Massachusetts Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Planning: Boston, MA.
34. Gregory, Ross, Cold War America, 1946-1990. 2003, New York, NY: Facts on File. 670.
35. "The University of Florida Catalogue 1945," The University Record of the University of Florida, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, 1945.
36. "The University of Florida Catalogue 1947," The University Record of the University of Florida, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, 1947.
37. "The University of Florida Catalogue 1950," The University Record of the University of Florida, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, 1950.
38. "Flavet Photographs" Manuscript Collection 97 ,University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections: Gainesville, Florida.
39. Trumbull, Sephen., Flavet Village Gives Vets Homes as University, in Miami Herald. 1946: Miami, FL.
40. Wilson, E. Meade. "The Dedication of Flavet Village," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1946, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL.
41. Busby, J., Flavet Oral History Study, J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Sam Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL.
42. Emerson, J., Interview with Jane Emerson, J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: St. Petersburg, FL.
43. Cawthon, Stanmore. "Veterans At U. Of F. Are Broke But Happy," St. Petersburg Times. 1946: St. Petersburg, Florida.
44. "Constitution and By Laws of Flavet Village II," in Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL.
104
45. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, August 7,1947," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL.
46. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, June 26, 1947," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL.
47. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, Spring 1948," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1948: Gainesville, FL.
48. "The Three Press" in Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1947: Gainesville, FL.
49. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, March 4, 1948," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1948: Gainesville, FL.
50. "Flavet Village III Board of Commissioners Minutes, April 29, 1948," Manuscript Collection 97, University of Florida Archives, Department of Special Collections. 1948: Gainesville, FL.
51. Halberstam, David, The Fifties. 1993, New York: Villard Books.
52. Busby, Joe, "Interview with Joe Busby," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL.
53. Emerson, Bill, "Interview with Bill Emerson," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: St. Petersburg, Fl.
54. Busby, Elta, "Interview with Elta Busby," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL.
55. Edson, Jim, "Interview with Jim Edson," J. Garrett, Editor. 2004, Proctor Oral History Program: Gainesville, FL.
56. Aaronson, Lisa, The President's Home, Gainesville, FL: The Office of the President of The University of Florida.
57. Pitts, Edith P., The Home of a University President. 1954, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL.
58. Reeves, F. Blair. "Housing for Married Students: Problems and Solutions," AIA Journal. Vol. 40 No. 3, September 1963
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
After graduating from Girls Preparatory School in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
Jennifer L. Garrett studied at the Lamar Dodd School of Art at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. During her undergraduate career, Jennifer also studied sculpture and painting in Cortona, Italy, where she fell in live with the Italian culture. After graduating with a Bachelor of Fine Arts in sculpture she moved to Atlanta to work for a French and
Italian antique importer.
In the summer of 2001, Jennifer married Timothy Garrett and moved to
Gainesville, FL, where she began working for a local homebuilder. This experience led her to apply to the Master of Interior Design program in the College of Design,
Construction and Planning and began working as a graduate assistant to Professor Susan
Tate. During her graduate career she had the opportunity to serve as a member of several local and state preservation organizations including the University of Florida Committee for the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Sites as well as being a member of the
Florida Trust for Historic Preservation. In her spare time Jennifer enjoys carving, drawing, playing the violin, gardening, running and being active in her church community.
105